Advocates and lawmakers attend a listening session on social justice issues hosted by WISDOM. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Advocates and lawmakers packed a room at the Capitol Wednesday for a listening session hosted by WISDOM, a statewide network of faith-based social justice organizations, to discuss immigration, criminal justice, housing and environmental policy. Participants said they hoped hearing personal stories would move lawmakers beyond “political posturing” and inspire change.

“It’s been almost nine years since I was last charged with anything,” said Jessica Jacobs, a formerly incarcerated woman who was one of the first to speak. “I’ve rebuilt my life, I’ve stayed in recovery, and I’ve dedicated myself to helping others do the same. But my criminal record still follows me, especially when it comes to finding a place to live.” Jacobs said that every time she pays a non-refundable fee only to fail a background check for housing, she’s reminded “that society hasn’t fully forgiven me, even though I’ve done everything I can do to make things right.”

When Jacobs was released from prison in 2010, she was placed in a transitional living program. It should have been a second chance, but it wasn’t because that apartment complex was in the very same neighborhood where she would get the substances she used. “It was a setup for failure,” said Jacobs, adding that women and men all over Wisconsin have similar experiences. “Imagine being locked up, and all you can imagine is being with your children again. You count the days dreaming about that reunion. But when you’re finally released, you find out that you can’t get housing that will allow your children to live with you. The pain doesn’t just stop with the mother, the children suffer, too. Families stay separated not because of lack of love or effort, but because there’s nowhere safe and stable for them to go home to.”

Jacobs finally found a landlord who was also in recovery, and could empathize with her situation. “No one’s success story should depend on luck,” she said. “When people don’t have housing, we see the same cycles of recidivism repeat and repeat. Without a place to live, it’s almost impossible to look for a job, maintain recovery, or reunite with your children and family. We say that we want people to come home and be better. But how can they if we won’t give them a place to call home?”

Crystal Keller, a member of the group My Way Out, shared  the struggle incarcerated mothers have in Wisconsin. Keller’s daughter is locked up at the Taycheedah Correctional Institution, where she will be for two years. Keller pointed to a 1991 Wisconsin law that says that incarcerated mothers should be housed with their babies until they turn 12 months old. Yet Keller’s daughter has never been offered access to that program, despite having a two-month-old when she was sentenced. “The program was allocated $198,000 per year,” Keller said. “Where is that money? That’s $6.7 million in the 35 years that they’ve never offered it.” 

Keller said that the Department of Corrections claims to offer the program for women who are out in the community. “That’s a lie,” said Keller. “…when are they going to start complying with the law?” Keller said that when her daughter was sent to Taycheedah, she was placed in restrictive housing for the first six months. “And it took them a month to pick her up from the county jail,” said Keller. “She was not allowed to hold her son for seven months, from two months old until just last month.” Keller’s family would travel from Milwaukee to Fond du Lac just to do hour-long video visits. “Often, visits would get cancelled…Why do I even need to go there?” 

Just last Sunday during a visit, Keller said that another family was told by a correctional officer that they weren’t allowed to even play hand-clapping games with their children. “It’s disgusting, it needs to stop, and DOC who punishes people for breaking the law has been breaking the law for 35 years.” 

Attendees drew attention to other conditions endured by people held in Wisconsin’s prisons and jails. Randy Gage, a member of WISDOM’s Solitary & Conditions of Confinement Task Force, who also has a background in psychology and experience working in prisons in both Georgia and Wisconsin. “Segregation is not the best way to go,” said Gage. “We went through a long period starting around the 1980’s of ‘get tough on crime’. Enough already with getting tough on crime! Enough!” Gage said that when he was growing up in Milwaukee, he didn’t have to worry about things like gun violence. “That didn’t happen, and that was before ‘get tough on time’. Since ‘get tough on crime’ all of this is going on? Don’t tell me it works. No, it doesn’t work.” 

Advocates also discussed Act 196, a bipartisan law that favors short-term sanctions for probation and parole violations like a weekend stint in jail, treatment program or community service over total revocation back to prison. “For more than a decade, the DOC has resisted implementing this law that could’ve reduced and stabilized our prison population,” said Tom Gilbert, a member of MOSES. “Finally in June of this year, the DOC issued proposed rules, but they are an extreme disappointment.” Although the proposed rules adopted some features of the law, they do not establish “a system of short-term sanctions,”, said Gilbert, saying that the DOC is choosing to keep a system that “sabotages” people’s chances of returning home rather than promoting healing. “It would save millions of taxpayer dollars spent on needless incarcerations,” said Gilbert. “Those dollars could be re-directed to proven, successful programs such as treatment programs and diversions.” 

Others pushed for restoring voting rights to formerly incarcerated people, which is already law in 25 states. Jeremy Dings, a formerly incarcerated member of WISDOM’s Post-Releases Issues Task Force, said that he has not been able to vote in eight election cycles because even though he has been  back in the community for 13 years. Dings said that democracy is strongest when it includes everyone’s voice, and that such a policy change would help people transition and feel like active, valued members of the community. 

Restoring drivers licenses for immigrants was also discussed by immigrant rights advocates and dairy farmers. People in mixed-status families take great risk to perform simple tasks like driving to work, or dropping their children off at school, they said. “This is not just about paperwork,”  said Grace Mariscal, a student at St. John’s Northwestern Academies. “This is about parents being able to drive their children to school safely, or go to a doctor’s appointment, without fear.” 

Mariscal said that 19 other states have passed laws that allow members of mixed-status families to have drivers licenses, policies which reduce hit-and-run accidents, increase state revenue, and reduced law enforcement costs. “These reforms would also strengthen Wisconsin’s economies,” said Mariscal. “Our dairy farms, our factories, our restaurants, our food processing plants all depend on immigrant labor. By allowing workers to drive legally, we help businesses maintain stable workforces, and ensure that the industries that feed and sustain our state continue to thrive.”

The rights of nature was also discussed, with advocates pushing for laws that establish personhood for natural habitats, rivers, forests and other ecosystems. “It really comes out of Indigenous values,” said Jim Goodman, a member of Family Farm Defenders. “It is an international movement.” Goodman pointed out that in America, even corporations are given personhood. So why not the ecosystems and natural environments that all things, human or otherwise, depend on? Goodman also advocated for policies to require sulfide mines to prove that they won’t be harmful to the environment before digging begins, and new protections for Devil’s Lake State Park. “Wisconsin has a long history of environmental stewardship”, said Goodman, pointing out that former Wisconsin Gov.  Gaylord Nelson was the founder of Earth Day. 

Advocates also discussed closing the prison in Green Bay, and granting parole to older incarcerated people who were sentenced when they were young. Some in the room condemned Gov. Tony Evers for using his veto power to remove a deadline to close Green Bay Correctional, and pointed to the fact that the Lincoln Hills juvenile prison is still open despite plans to build new prisons to replace the aging and controversial facility. 

Several lawmakers including Reps. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee), Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), and new legislators including Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) and Karen DeSanto (D-Baraboo) said  hearing stories like those shared Wednesday are crucial for their work.

“Remember the folks that are not here,” said Madison, who told an emotional story about his brother and friends who struggled with mental illness, suicidal thoughts, and incarceration. “Give your anger to those folks, channel your grief towards those folks, because it’s a damn shame that they’re not here.” 

A sign explaining delays in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the government shutdown is displayed at a Sprouts grocery store in Bountiful, Utah, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

The Trump administration will release full benefits for most participants in the nation’s major federal nutrition program within 24 hours of the reopening of the federal government, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson said Wednesday. 

Many of the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help afford groceries have faced uncertainty for weeks about their November benefits, which President Donald Trump and other top administration officials said could not be paid while the government was shut down. 

A USDA spokesperson answered an afternoon email from States Newsroom inquiring about when benefits would restart with a single sentence:

“Upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most States,” the spokesperson wrote. 

Politico first reported the department’s 24-hour timeline.

While the federal government funds SNAP benefits, states are responsible for their administration, meaning an array of different processes across the country. 

The U.S. House was set to vote Wednesday evening to clear a bill to reopen the government after a record 43-day shutdown, after the Senate acted earlier this week. Trump is expected to sign it into law as early as Wednesday night. 

The enactment of the bill — and the subsequent renewal of federal payments — would resolve a dizzying weekslong saga over SNAP that placed the roughly 1 in 8 Americans who use the program in the middle of a political and legal battle playing out across every level of the federal judiciary. 

Since the shutdown began Oct. 1, the USDA has reversed its own position, the U.S. Supreme Court paused lower court orders and Trump himself expressed contradicting views.

In the most recent chapter, USDA said it would authorize states to pay 65% of benefits for November, and the Supreme Court paused until Thursday night lower court orders compelling full payments. 

The department had previously told a Rhode Island federal court it could take weeks or even months for beneficiaries to receive the partial allotments and the administration continued to fight rulings to immediately release full funding, even as the shutdown crept toward its conclusion.

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., was sworn in to office on Nov. 12, 2025, by House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. (Screenshot courtesy of C-SPAN)

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to office Wednesday after a delay that U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson attributed to the long government shutdown, but that critics allege was because the Arizona lawmaker pledged to be the deciding signature on a petition to release the so-called Epstein files.

Grijalva, who was elected on Sept. 23, has publicly vowed to add her name to a bipartisan measure that would force the House to vote on the release of files from the government’s investigation of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

The Trump administration said in July it would not release further information related to the case. President Donald Trump had campaigned on releasing the files.

Grijalva, Arizona’s first elected Latina, called the delayed ceremony an “abuse of power.”

“It has been 50 days since the people of Arizona’s 7th Congressional District elected me to represent them. … One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing-in of a duly elected member of Congress for political reasons,” said Grijalva, who filled the seat occupied by her late father, Raúl Grijalva, who died earlier this year.

“Our democracy only works when everyone has a voice. This includes the millions of people across the country who have experienced violence and exploitation, including Liz Stein and Jessica Michaels, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse,” Grijalva said. “They are here in the gallery with us this evening.”

To cheers from her Democratic colleagues in the chamber, Grijalva said she was going to sign the petition “right now.”  

Massie, Khanna lead petition drive

As of early September, the discharge petition, led by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had garnered the signatures of all Democrats and four Republicans, leaving the petition just one shy of the 218 signatures needed to bypass Johnson and force a vote on the House floor.

The three Republicans who joined Massie in signing were Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

The petition forces to the floor, likely at some point in the next few weeks, a Massie-sponsored resolution from July compelling the Department of Justice to “disclose all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein” and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on federal sex trafficking charges.  

The resolution attracted 50 cosponsors, nearly a dozen of them Republicans.

Johnson defends delay

Grijalva and her supporters have outright accused Johnson of delaying the swearing-in because of the Epstein petition.

“When the American people vote, this chamber respects their will and seats them immediately. Politics should never come into play,” said Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., on the House floor moments before Johnson administered the oath to Grijalva.

Democrats pointed to the fact that Johnson has previously sworn in other lawmakers when the House was not in session. 

Johnson argued in mid-October that Grijalva hadn’t yet been sworn in because she won her special election after the House went home on Sept. 19, followed shortly thereafter by a government shutdown on Oct. 1.  “As soon as (Sen.) Chuck Schumer opens the government … we’ll have that as soon as we get back to business,” he said. 

At a press conference on Oct. 15, Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego accused Johnson of protecting “pedophiles, whether it’s involving Donald Trump or any of his rich, elite friends.”

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein. Trump maintains he booted Epstein from his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, because the financier had poached young female employees.

A deluge of Epstein documents

New emails revealing details about the relationship between Trump and Epstein surfaced Wednesday. Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released three exchanges with content suggesting Trump was aware of Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. 

Republican leaders on the committee soon followed by releasing more than 20,000 documents they received from the Epstein estate.

Reports also surfaced that the Trump administration had reached out to two GOP lawmakers, Boebert and Mace, about removing their names from the petition.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to confirm during Wednesday’s briefing that Trump had met with Boebert in the Situation Room, a secure center of national and global information for the president.

“I’m not going to detail conversations that took place in the Situation Room,” Leavitt said when asked about Trump approaching Boebert to remove her name.

Boebert’s office pointed States Newsroom to the lawmaker’s afternoon social media post that read,“I want to thank White House officials for meeting with me today. Together, we remain committed to ensuring transparency for the American people.”

Mace’s office did not respond to questions to confirm the White House reached out to the South Carolina lawmaker. Rather, Mace’s Communications Director Sydney Long said, “​​The Congresswoman is not removing her name from the discharge petition because of her personal story.”

Mace has publicly shared her own story of sexual assault.

Furloughed federal workers stand in line for hours ahead of a special food distribution by the Capital Area Food Bank and No Limits Outreach Ministries on Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The longest shutdown in U.S. history ended Wednesday night when President Donald Trump signed a spending package that  reopens the government and funds most of it through January.

The Oval Office ceremony came just hours after the House voted to approve the legislation, which senators passed earlier in the week. 

“I hope we can all agree that the government should never be shut down again,” Trump said, before urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the rule that requires bills to garner the support of at least 60 lawmakers to advance. “Terminate the filibuster.”

The 222-209 vote marked the first time that chamber took up a bill since mid-September, when Republican leaders recessed after members approved a stopgap spending measure they knew couldn’t advance in the Senate. 

That stalemate, centered around sharply rising health care costs, led to a 43-day shutdown that affected nearly every corner of the country through delayed funding for nutrition programs for millions of Americans, no pay for federal workers, flight delays tied to staffing shortages and much more. 

But after nearly six weeks of failed procedural votes, seven centrist Senate Democrats and one independent broke with party leaders on Sunday to advance the reworked spending package and then voted to approve the legislation Monday. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who said throughout the shutdown he was interested in a bipartisan path forward on health insurance costs after the shutdown ended, committed to hold a floor vote on a Democratic bill “no later than the second week in December.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said repeatedly throughout the funding lapse GOP lawmakers have ideas to improve the health care system. However, he didn’t detail any of those publicly and hasn’t committed to a floor vote. 

“We have volumes of ideas on how to do this, on how to fix it, on how to drive costs down and how to increase access to care and quality of care, and you’re going to see all that vigorous debate,” Johnson said during a brief press conference after the vote.

House debate on the spending package that will reopen government was largely along party lines, though Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Greg Steube of Florida voted against the bill.

Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Adam Gray of California, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state and Tom Suozzi of New York voted for passage. 

Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., urged support for the legislation ahead of the vote, saying “history reminds us that shutdowns never change the outcome.” 

“Over the last 43 days the facts did not shift, the votes required did not shift, the path forward did not change,” Cole said. “The only thing that did move was the level of pain Democrats inflicted on the nation.”

Much higher premiums predicted 

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the spending panel, rejected the legislation and said it does nothing to address the rising cost of health care. 

“More than 20 million Americans will have to pay double, even triple, their monthly insurance premium in just a matter of weeks,” DeLauro said. “And this bill leaves families without even a glimmer of hope that their costs might go down.”

The Senate significantly reworked the stopgap bill the House originally passed in mid-September into what is now a 394-page package, adding in three of the full-year government funding bills and changing the date of the stopgap measure to Jan. 30, among many other provisions. The original stopgap was set to last through Nov. 21. 

The updated measure gives Congress a couple more months to work out agreement on the remaining nine appropriations bills that were supposed to become law before the start of the current fiscal year on Oct. 1. 

Lawmakers could create a partial government shutdown if they’re unable to agree on approving the remaining appropriations bill before the new government funding deadline at the end of January.

Democratic discharge petition

Trump will turn his attention toward the rising cost of health care that Democrats highlighted during the shutdown, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a Wednesday briefing, though she didn’t put a firm timeline on when he’ll release any plans.

“Once the government reopens, the president, as he’s always maintained, is absolutely open to having conversations about health care,” Leavitt said. “And I think you’ll see the president putting forth some really good policy proposals that Democrats should take very seriously to fix, again, the system that they broke.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters following a closed-door meeting that Democrats will try to get the necessary signatures on a discharge petition to force a floor vote on legislation to extend tax credits for three years for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The New York Democrat said the extension mirrors how long the enhanced tax credits were set to last initially in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 

Temporary health care subsidies were originally passed as part of the COVID-19-era American Rescue Plan in 2021 for two years. The Inflation Reduction Act, the signature climate policy bill from the Biden administration, then extended those health care subsidies for three years, expiring at the end of December 2025. 

“The legislation that we will introduce in the context of a discharge petition will provide that level of certainty to working-class Americans who are on the verge of seeing their premiums, co-pays and deductibles skyrocket,” Jeffries said. 

Democrats will need the support of at least a handful of Republicans in order to get the 218 signatures needed to force a vote on the bill. The discharge petition was released mid-afternoon.

What’s in the new bill

The spending package wraps in several different bills and provisions, such as the three full-year funding bills that cover the Agriculture Department, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Legislative Branch, military construction projects and Department of Veterans Affairs.

Included are:

• A stopgap spending bill that will keep the rest of the federal government running through Jan. 30;
• $30 million for the U.S. Capitol Police to enhance protections for lawmakers, $30 million for the U.S. Marshals Service to bolster security for members of the judicial and executive branches, and $28 million for enhanced safety for Supreme Court justices;
• Language requiring the Trump administration to reinstate the thousands of workers it sent layoff notices to during the shutdown and preventing officials from firing those workers through January;
• Provisions mandating the Trump administration provide back pay to all federal workers, including those furloughed during the shutdown. Trump at one point during the shutdown had threatened to yank that back pay, though it is required by law.

The Trump administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy a few hours before the House voted, saying the administration strongly supports the bill, describing the measure as “a fiscally responsible package that provides the full-year funding necessary to support the Nation’s veterans, farmers, and rural communities.”

The package also “ends disruptions to programs the American people rely on and ensures the thousands of Federal employees who have been forced to work without a paycheck, such as air traffic controllers, will be promptly paid,” the administration added. 

The Agriculture and Military Construction-VA spending bills include tens of billions of dollars in earmarks requested by lawmakers from both political parties, important to them as midterm elections loom in 2026.

‘Legislative self-dealing’ in Senate attacked

But not every Republican on Capitol Hill is happy with how the full-year bills turned out. 

Speaker Johnson announced mid-afternoon that the House would take a separate vote later this month to remove language from the package that will allow senators to file suit against the federal government if their data is subpoenaed.

“We are putting this legislation on the fast track suspension calendar in the House for next week,” Johnson wrote in a social media post. 

The provision, tucked into the full-year Legislative Branch spending bill, is retroactive to January 1, 2022, and would apply to the eight senators who had their cell phone records subpoenaed during a 2023 investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. 

The FBI reportedly obtained data for cell phone use between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021, for Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. 

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said during floor debate the bill “contains the single most corrupt provision for legislative self-dealing that anyone in this chamber today has ever voted on.”

“This provision is an affront to our taxpayers, to the rule of law, to everyone who believes that we in public office must be the servants of the people, not the masters of the people who get special legal rights and privileges and multi-million-dollar payoffs,” Raskin said. 

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters earlier in the day that he will “definitely” be filing a lawsuit after the new provision becomes law. 

“And if you think I’m going to settle this thing for a million dollars? No. I want to make it so painful no one ever does this again,” Graham said, later adding he wasn’t sure if he’d win such a case.

Dissatisfaction among GOP lawmakers with that provision was on full display on social media, where Florida’s Steube responded to Speaker Johnson’s post by writing that the “Senate will never take up your ‘standalone’ bill. This is precisely why you shouldn’t let the Senate jam the House.”

 

A bin of THC edible products from Virginia stores is displayed by the state attorney general. While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. (Photo by Graham Moomaw/ Virginia Mercury)

A provision significantly limiting the sale of intoxicating hemp products made its way into legislation to reopen the federal government just a day before the Senate approved the bill. Its inclusion follows years of pressure from states and the marijuana industry.

While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. The products, from drinks to gummies, are sold in gas stations and smoke shops. Critics say some companies have exploited a legal loophole from 2018 to manufacture products that get people high — without the safety regulations and taxes facing the legal marijuana industry.

That’s led dozens of states to limit or ban certain intoxicating hemp products. Most states also have pushed for federal changes, though some farm states worry the pending federal bill — which the House is expected to vote on as soon as today — goes too far.

A bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general recently urged Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp, arguing that the underregulated industry threatens public health and undermines law enforcement.

Texas lawmakers this year approved a strict ban on intoxicating hemp, but that measure was vetoed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The governor raised constitutional concerns because federal law allowed the products, but he then issued an executive order increasing state agency regulations, including age restrictions.

This summer, Florida regulators seized tens of thousands of packages of hemp products that failed to meet new child protection standards, including child-resistant packaging, marketing restrictions and enhanced labeling rules. In Tallahassee, the state Senate approved a ban on hemp-derived THC products, including beverages, but that measure died in the state House. A similar effort last year was vetoed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said it would harm small businesses.

Last month, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation strengthening state enforcement of its ban on intoxicating hemp products. Similarly, Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine declared an emergency last month in an executive order banning intoxicating hemp products for 90 days while lawmakers debate potential legislation.

Missouri hemp businesses fear new federal THC limits will destroy the industry

Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of the cannabis plant. The 39 state attorneys general argue manufacturers are manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC that can be more intoxicating than marijuana.

“In this way, legal, nonintoxicating hemp is used to make Frankenstein THC products that get adults high and harm and even kill children,” the attorneys general wrote.

Hemp-derived gummies and beverages are sold without consistent age restrictions or labeling regulations and oftentimes resemble candy. During his announcement, DeWine showcased brightly packaged intoxicating hemp products that resembled name-brand candy products.

“Certainly, it’s easy to see how a child will confuse this product with real candy and eat a few gummy bears and ingest enough THC to require hospitalization,” he said, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.

Though it has faced mounting restrictions in the states, the hemp industry says the federal change poses an existential threat.

On Monday, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said the legislation pending in Congress would wipe out 95% of the nation’s $28.4 billion hemp industry.

“The language will force patients, seniors and veterans who rely on hemp products to break federal criminal law to acquire them,” the trade group posted online.

Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the organization, said the industry has been pushing for regulation rather than outright prohibition. He acknowledged the problem of bad actors, but said those can be addressed with strong regulations like those that exist in Kentucky and Minnesota.

“These are good examples of states that have put together robust regulations. But we need to see that at the federal level, and we’ve been supporting legislation to do that for the last seven years,” he told Stateline.

Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, said he included the hemp measure in the bill to close an unintended legal loophole and that the measure would still allow farmers to grow hemp for fiber, oil and drug trials.

But fellow Kentucky Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said the move would “eradicate the hemp industry” and could override some state laws. Paul offered an amendment to remove the hemp provision but failed.

The hemp loophole

Hemp derives from the same cannabis species as marijuana, but is legally defined by its lower levels of THC, the psychoactive component of the plant.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, Congress sanctioned hemp in the 2018 farm bill to allow an agricultural market for hemp-based textiles, animal feeds and human wellness products centered on cannabidiol, or CBD, products. The farm bill allowed cultivation of hemp plants with a THC concentration of 0.3% or lower by dry weight.

But that threshold has become essentially meaningless, said Katharine Neill Harris, a fellow in drug policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

That’s because manufacturers have found ways to convert legal hemp plants into potent forms of synthetic marijuana. Aside from the potential of creating very strong products, she said the process requires the addition of solvents and other ingredients that raise many safety questions.

“With marijuana products, you can get some very potent products,” she said. “But the psychoactive components to THC are naturally occurring. It naturally occurs in that natural amount. You’re not doing a whole bunch of manipulation to increase the potency of the product and adding ingredients.”

Harris has tracked the growing number of states regulating the industry: Six states and the District of Columbia now ban all consumable hemp products with any amount of THC. In 24 states, intoxicating hemp products are permitted, though 15 of those states allow only low-potency products.

But even states with strict regulations still must contend with legal online markets.

“There’s a big part of that activity that you can’t control as a state when something is federally legal, and so that’s one thing that they’re asking for is federal leadership on this issue,” she said. “I think there is a big demand for some sort of industry standards.”

If approved by Congress and signed by the president, as expected, the new hemp legislation will likely have uneven impacts across the states.

For example, the change likely won’t dramatically alter the legal landscape in Alaska, where the regulators have banned all intoxicating hemp products. Marijuana businesses complain those products are still being sold, despite the ban.

But in a state like Nebraska, where lawmakers have been unsuccessful in limiting intoxicating hemp, the change could drastically alter both consumer access and business sales, depending on enforcement.

On Monday, Paul said the federal legislation would wipe away hemp regulations in many states, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine and Utah.

“The bill before us nullifies all these state laws,” he said.

‘Running with knives’

The hemp industry has argued that a lot of the opposition to it stems from marijuana businesses looking to protect their own markets, noting that campaigns for restrictions are often more organized in states that have legalized marijuana.

But producers of intoxicating hemp are looking for market access without the associated safety regulations and tax structures states have created for marijuana, argued Chris Lindsey, the director of state advocacy and public policy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, an organization representing the legal marijuana industry.

“They want to have some kind of regulatory framework that’s somehow different than the one that states already have [for marijuana],” he said.

His organization cheered the Senate’s efforts “to address the dangerous proliferation of unregulated synthetic THC products.”

Lindsey said hemp-derived products can contain contaminants, including pesticides. Many hemp products can be sourced cheaply overseas, he said, and with lax oversight, there is no system to recall tainted products here.

“To me, that’s like running with knives,” he told Stateline.

Floridians react to federal legislation that could ‘devastate’ state’s hemp industry

The Missouri Cannabis Trade Association recently purchased hemp products from gas stations and smoke shops from across the state to test them in an effort to show they need more regulation.

In its “Missouri Hemp Hoax Report,” the organization said independent testing found 53 of the 55 products purchased were actually intoxicating marijuana well above the legal limit of THC. Third-party lab results also showed some of the products contained pesticides and heavy metals.

Those results underscore that the products should face the same rules as legal marijuana does, said Andrew Mullins, president and executive director of the cannabis trade association. State law requires marijuana to be grown and manufactured in Missouri, mandates lab testing and allows for sales only at licensed dispensaries.

“In my mind, if it’s marijuana, which most of this is, then it should be regulated like marijuana,” Mullins said.

He said calling the unregulated products “hemp” is akin to someone selling whiskey and calling it corn: “Everybody is using hemp as a cover to basically sell intoxicating drugs.”

Mullins acknowledged the confusion among policymakers and law enforcement. But he said there are already laws — including those against trafficking marijuana without a license — that could help address the issue.

Catherine Hanaway, a Republican who was sworn in as Missouri’s new attorney general in September, has vowed action on unregulated hemp products, particularly THC beverages that are booming in popularity.

“Our focus is on the health and safety of Missourians,” James Lawson, her deputy chief of staff, told the Missouri Independent last month. “This is an unregulated industry that makes untested, unknown substances available to the public without any oversight, including children where we think it’s particularly detrimental.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

A photograph of President Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is displayed after being unofficially installed in a bus shelter. (Leon Neal/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats investigating the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein released emails Wednesday they say show President Donald Trump knew about the financier’s abuse of underage girls as far back as 2011.

The three emails released by Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform were among 23,000 pages of documents turned over to the committee by Epstein’s estate, according to Democrats.

In a 2011 correspondence with the now-convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein wrote that Trump “spent hours at my house” with a victim whose name is redacted from the email. In the same email, Epstein refers to Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked.”

In a 2015 email exchange between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff, Wolff tells Epstein that he’s heard CNN will ask Trump about his relationship with the financier. The two have an exchange about how to hypothetically “craft an answer” for Trump. 

Wolff responds, “If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable (public relations) and political currency.”

In a January 2019 email, also to Wolff, Epstein referenced a victim’s name, redacted, as having been at Trump’s Florida estate and private club, Mar-a-Lago, and wrote “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. Of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” 

 

 

Trump has said he had a falling out with Epstein and kicked him out of his club over allegations Epstein poached young women workers from the club’s spa.

Emails raise more questions, leading Dem says

House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia said in a statement Wednesday the emails “raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President.”

“The Department of Justice must fully release the Epstein files to the public immediately. The Oversight Committee will continue pushing for answers and will not stop until we get justice for the victims,” Garcia continued.

Within hours of the committee Democrats’ release of the emails, committee Republican leaders issued a brief press release linking to “an additional 20,000 pages of documents received from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein” contained on Google Drive and Dropbox clouds. 

During Wednesday’s press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

Leavitt added that Trump and Epstein both lived in Palm Beach, Florida.

“Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar a Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep,” she said.

Congress investigates after FBI backtracks

The bipartisan committee investigation began shortly after the FBI released a July memo stating the Department of Justice would not be releasing any further information on the government’s sex trafficking investigation into Epstein.

Epstein was found dead, apparently by suicide, in August 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell where he was awaiting federal trial.

The FBI’s announcement that the agency would not release further details caused a firestorm of demands to release all investigative material, even among Trump’s supporters in Congress and far-right media influencers, including Megyn Kelly and the late Charlie Kirk. 

Trump campaigned on releasing what are often referred to as the “Epstein files.”

A bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives is aiming to force a vote on the release of the files as soon as this week after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., swears in Arizona Democrat Adelita Grijalva. 

Grijalva has pledged to be the final signature needed on a discharge petition by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that will compel a floor vote on a bill to release all Epstein investigation files.

Massie and Khanna hosted a press conference on Capitol Hill in early September featuring several women who told stories of abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.

Since the FBI memo, a magnifying glass has been fixed on Trump’s past relationship with Epstein. 

The president sued The Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump allegedly gave to Epstein. The card featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s apparent signature mimicking pubic hair. 

The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear. 

Trump has denied the reports.

Telephones inside the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Vandalia, Mo., where incarcerated people pay per-minute rates to call loved ones. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

The Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back limits on how much companies can charge incarcerated people and their families for phone and video calls.

The 2-1 vote in late October reverses rate caps the FCC adopted last year under a 2023 law that allows the agency to set limits on prison phone and video call rates. Critics say the rates are kept high by limited competition among major providers such as Securus Technologies and ViaPath.

Under the new interim rules, phone calls will cost up to $0.11 per minute in large prisons and $0.18 per minute in the smallest jails. Video calls will cost up to $0.23 per minute in large facilities and as much as $0.41 in small ones.

Only three states — Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma — currently have rates above the new rates, meaning most prison systems across the country are already below the previously adopted 2024 rate caps.

The new 2025 rates will take effect 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.

In June, the FCC had abruptly announced a two-year delay in implementing the 2024 rate caps after receiving complaints from local sheriffs and prison telecom companies. Republican attorneys general from 14 states also filed a lawsuit last year challenging the commission’s authority to limit how much prisons and jails can charge for phone calls, arguing that the rules deprived correctional facilities of needed funding.

Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty, both appointed by President Donald Trump, supported the rollback. Carr argued the previous caps limited facilities’ ability to recover safety and security costs, such as monitoring calls, leading some to scale back or eliminate calling services altogether. Trusty said the 2024 rules “did not always strike the right balance,” and cited “unintended consequences” like service disruptions in some facilities.

At least one small jail — in Baxter County, Arkansas — ended phone services earlier this year in protest of the lower rate caps.

Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, appointed by President Joe Biden, voted against the order and called it “indefensible.” She said the decision gives monopoly telecom providers “the authority to increase the costs for families to maintain critical connections with their loved ones in prison.”

Advocates for incarcerated people condemned the vote.

“These changes are a betrayal of the families who entrusted the FCC to protect them from the notoriously predatory correctional telecom industry,” Bianca Tylek, the executive director of Worth Rises, said in a news release. Worth Rises is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to dismantling the prison industry.

Some research suggests that incarcerated people who maintain consistent contact with loved ones are significantly more likely to succeed upon release and are less likely to reoffend.

The FCC’s latest decision comes months after New York joined California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota in offering free phone calls in state prisons. Colorado’s policy won’t take full effect until 2026.

At least two states — Maryland and Missouri — considered legislation this year to make prison and jail calls more affordable. Maryland’s proposal to make calls free in state prisons did not pass, but Missouri enacted a law in August capping phone call rates at no more than 12 cents per minute in correctional centers.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Wind turbines rise up above farmland near Middleton on November 19, 2013. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Democrats have announced a bill that would cap residential energy bills at 2% of household income. 

On Tuesday, Democrats said the proposal from Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) would protect Wisconsinites’ bank accounts while the state finds ways to expand clean energy production in the face of climate change and manage the increasing energy burden posed by data center developments across the state. 

“Rising energy rates are becoming an unsustainable burden on regular people in Wisconsin,” Madison said at a Tuesday morning press conference. “Our energy system still has big problems to tackle, like dramatically moving towards carbon-free electricity, or the challenge of data centers, which are currently on course to double the amount of energy creation in Wisconsin. Regardless of your stance on data centers, artificial intelligence and the role these technologies can or should play in our communities, the people of Wisconsin must have their energy burden lifted. This bill is a common sense, necessary protection for people struggling to afford their basic needs before we take further action on any of these things as legislators to address those issues.”

At the press conference, residents who have struggled with energy bills spoke about how getting power disconnected can reverberate through people’s lives, causing health problems or forcing choices between other household costs. 

“We’re doing everything we can, yet we still cannot keep up,” said Jill Sexton, a Wausau resident who is on disability assistance with a husband on Social Security. “I ended up taking a part time job specifically to cover the increase in our electric and heating bills. Nowadays, here’s our reality: Each month we choose between paying the electric bill and heat bill or filling our prescriptions. Some months I don’t buy the medication. Some months we stretch food until the very last day.”

Several lawmakers tied the bill to the national Democratic party’s growing focus on “affordability” and bipartisan skepticism of data centers. 

“We have the money. It’s all about how we prioritize where we spend it,” Rep. Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) said at the press conference. “Folks in my district and around the state are on a knife’s edge. Many of them are just barely getting by. This bill is going to do something. It’s going to keep more money in their pockets. It deserves a hearing and it deserves to be passed by this body.” 

Legislators announced the bill just as communities are grappling with the construction of massive data centers across the state. While the centers can provide an easy source of property tax revenue for local governments, they also use a massive amount of water and energy — raising questions about the protection of local water supplies, adequacy of the state’s existing renewable energy sources and concerns that a data center-generated spike in energy use will be passed on to local ratepayers. 

Last week, Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) introduced a bill that would require data centers to cover the cost of increased energy use, mandate the development of more clean energy and ensure data center construction pays local workers living wages. 

“While our state energy system faces deep uncertainty, especially when it comes to the climate crisis, we’re responding to data centers that are going to have increasing energy demands and raise rates for many communities,” said Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) who is running in the Democratic primary for governor. “It is vital that we cap all utility payments at 2% of income so that we can protect our ratepayers and our communities first. This bill is a clear and systemic practical response to rising energy rates, and it’s one of the key cornerstone priorities of the Assembly Democrats’ affordability agenda.”

Under the rate cap bill, the Public Service Commission would be responsible for administering an energy burden relief fund. The fund would cover the difference for any household with energy costs that are more than 2% of the monthly household income. The bill would give the PSC 12 months after enactment to start the fund and three years to automatically enroll every eligible household. 

The bill would allow the PSC to prioritize households making less than 300% of the federal poverty level, only provide payments to cover energy costs for primary residences and provide a maximum energy use threshold to prevent people from receiving state aid for energy intensive home businesses such as mining cryptocurrency. 

Also, the bill would prevent public utility companies from disconnecting the service of people making less than 300% of the federal poverty level and require the PSC to annually report the number of utility disconnections.

An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin lawmakers are exploring ways to make it easier for school districts to consolidate as they face  declining enrollment and financial difficulties.

There are 421 school districts in the state of Wisconsin and about two-thirds are struggling with declining enrollment. According to preliminary numbers from the Department of Public Instruction, enrollment for public school districts in the 2025-26 school year fell by about 13,600 students, representing a nearly 2% decrease from last year’s estimate. Total enrollment across school districts is about 759,800 this year. 

Reps. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said during an Assembly Education Committee public hearing Tuesday that declining enrollment is to blame for the financial troubles that schools are facing.

“The districts that are going to referendum all the time. It’s almost always because of declining enrollment. It just gets more expensive per student to educate those kids as the districts become smaller,” Kitchens said. “We’re not telling districts this is what you have to do or what you should do. We’re telling them this is an option for you to consider.” 

Schools in Wisconsin have seen a drop of about 53,000 students over a decade, from the 2013-14 to 2022-23 school years. Kitchens pointed to estimates from the Wisconsin Department of Administration that the population in Wisconsin is projected to drop by 200,000 by 2050, noting it will be largely due to the state’s declining birth rate.

Wisconsin’s school funding system is based in part on per pupil numbers, meaning that if fewer students are enrolled schools receive decreased funding from the state, even if a district’s overall costs may not fall. 

Kitchens said that having 421 school districts is not going to be sustainable in the long term in Wisconsin and questioned whether there is another state that “on a per capita basis has that many” school districts. 

Kitchens said the issue shouldn’t be partisan. He noted that school consolidation is something that the 2019 Blue Ribbon Commission on Wisconsin school funding supported through its  recommendations.

“Many districts have used the referendum process to increase the property tax burden on the local residents to backfill the loss in state aid revenue,” Nedweski said. “Many others have seen them repeatedly fail as property taxpayers are unwilling to raise their taxes to increasingly fund empty schools.” She noted that a recent Marquette Law School Poll found that 57% of participants said they would vote against a referendum request. “There is no referendum that can be passed or law that can be signed to single-handedly reverse decades of birth rate declines to alleviate the stresses of declining enrollment in our schools. It’s clear that a more long-term solution is needed to address these demographic challenges because the status quo is not sustainable.” 

Wisconsin has had a record number of school districts go to referendum to help meet costs. But beyond declining enrollment, public school advocates say the burden on local taxpayers asked to fund their schools through referendum has grown mostly due to the fact that state investments in public schools have not kept pace with inflation for almost two decades. In the most recent state budget, Wisconsin lawmakers provided additional special education funding, but opted not to provide any increase in general aid, leaving increased costs to fall on property taxpayers.

State Superintendent Tom McCarthy noted during the hearing that Wisconsin is currently spending the least, proportionally, in state revenue that it has ever spent on schools under the current funding formula. He noted that about 32.1% of state general purpose revenue goes to state general aid to schools, and that percentage used to be around 35%. He also said the conversation about declining enrollment and costs had to include the acknowledgement that school districts’ revenue limits have been frozen at different points over the last decade, prohibiting school districts from raising more funds unless they go to referendum to ask voters.

Nedweski said the bills would be useful tools and incentives for districts facing decisions about whether to consolidate.

“Buildings do not educate kids, teachers do,” Nedweski said. “By finding efficiencies through voluntary consolidation, districts will be able to reduce overhead and direct resources to the classrooms so that our students can continue to receive a quality education, while taxpayers receive relief on their property tax bills.”

The package of bills would take a number of steps to encourage districts to explore consolidation, including providing financial incentives.

School districts already receive additional aid when they consolidate. For the first five years after consolidation, a consolidated school district gets $150 per pupil. In the sixth year, the aid drops to 50% of what the school district received in the fifth year and in the seventh year, the aid drops to 25% of the fifth year. 

AB 644 would increase that additional state aid to schools that consolidate in 2026, 2027 and 2028 to $2,000 per pupil in the first year. The last six years would be the same as under current law. 

Kitchens said that he thought most school districts would be able to decide within a year whether consolidation is something that they want to pursue. 

“I’m very open in the future to extending that deadline, but I think to get it passed, we need to put a sunset on it, so we’re doing three years,” Kitchens said. 

Dee Pattack, executive director of the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, noted that the inclusion of 2026 won’t really be useful for school districts since districts that want to consolidate have missed the opportunity to do so if they haven’t decided by now for next year. She also suggested that lawmakers look at spreading out  the additional aid more gradually, saying that dropping aid from $2,000 to $150 per student creates a cliff.

Kitchens said he would look at amending the timeline included in the bill. 

Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) noted that decisions about consolidation can be emotional and personal for communities. 

“Public schools are the heart of our communities, oftentimes in rural communities, especially. They’re one of the largest employers. It’s where you have the most celebrations. There’s athletic events that are important to everyone in the communities and so this decision of consolidation is deeply complex. It’s personal for a lot of school districts,” Hong said. 

Hong, who is running in the Democratic primary for governor, questioned whether lawmakers had considered just leaving the decisions on consolidation up to local communities altogether, noting that Wisconsin law favors local control of schools. 

“That’s why it’s voluntary. That’s why we’re offering these tools. It is not mandatory. We know it’s going to be difficult,” Kitchens said, adding that Door County used to be full of one-room school houses until there was a consolidation in 1960. “When they consolidated that and formed Southern Door [County] School District, people were out there with pitchforks. It’s always going to be difficult, but we have to look at the future and what it’s going to be.” 

Kitchens noted that districts are not “clamoring” to consolidate and that the option exists as a last resort for most. 

“There are a few that are, and you’ll hear from at least one of them today that really have reached that point where they know it’s necessary,” Kitchens said. “We’re not hearing districts begging for this.” 

Joe Green, district administrator and director of special education for the Greenwood School District, and Chris Lindner, district administrator for the Loyal School District, testified about the rural school districts’ journey of consolidation, which their school boards are focused on getting done by July 1, 2028. They said it has been an emotional journey as people are attached to their schools and communities, but that it could be the best option for them. 

“It might be the thing that gets us over the hump to consolidation,” Green said of the new legislative proposal. “It might be the funding that our two districts need to put a good plan in front of our communities. It might allow us to do some small projects to make consolidation smoother. There may be small construction, or things that we need to do to retrofit buildings, if that’s the way that our facility studies go. There’s a million different scenarios out there on what consolidation can look like. But without that funding, I mean, honestly, with our two districts $150 bucks a kid is $100,000 — not gonna do much with that… it’s just not going to do much.”

Green said the districts already share bus service and that 50% of their co–curricular activities are shared. They said that the schools began sharing students and staff due to their difficulty finding adequate staff to deliver instruction in rural Clark County in central Wisconsin. 

Lindner said that consolidation could help open up more opportunities for students. “We do drama together. If we did not, we would have five to six students that would not be able to do drama because, you know, can’t do it with five or six kids,” he said. 

Lindner said consolidation could also help save money.

“Our taxpayers are paying a lot of money for our operating referendums,” he said. “We tell communities if we do not start working together more, then we will be losing.”

AB 645 would instruct DPI to provide grants of up to $25,000 to groups of two or more school district boards for the costs of a feasibility study for school district consolidation or whole grade sharing agreements. 

Another bill, AB 647, would have DPI provide four-year grants of up to $500 per pupil enrolled in a single grade to school districts that enter into a whole-grade sharing agreement, agreeing to educate students at one location. 

Felzkowski said that whole-grade sharing is a step before consolidation.

“It lets them test the waters if they ever want to move to full consolidation,” Felzkowski said, adding that middle and high schools may be able to provide more class offerings, including advanced coursework, to students with grade sharing.

AB 648 would help create new supplemental state aid for consolidated school districts to  address differences in school districts’ levies when they merge. The measure is meant to address concerns of higher property taxes for residents of low-levy districts when a consolidation takes place.

AB 649 provides the funding for the bills, including $2.7 million for grants to schools that enter whole-grade sharing agreements, $3 million to provide state aid to offset levy limit differences and $250,000 for feasibility studies. 

McCarthy of DPI noted at the hearing that there are already several legal and mechanical supports in place to encourage consolidation, and that even with those, the last major consolidation that took place was on July 1, 2018. Two K-8 districts merged to become the Holy Hill Area School District in Richfield. 

McCarthy of DPI said the slate of bills being proposed are “largely building from past efforts to support and to incentivize consolidation” and that the agency doesn’t view them as “a brand new door that’s being opened up” to solve problems.

The final bill in the package, AB 646, would study what changes should be made to Wisconsin’s school districts. Under it, DPI would hire a contractor to conduct a study of Wisconsin’s school districts that looks at current school district boundaries, potential school district consolidations, existing school district facilities, staffing levels and salary scales, the population of school-age children in each school district, and revenue limits and current overall spending. 

McCarthy said the agency is most excited about this final proposal.  He said it is similar to what Vermont has done and addresses some of the factors that are important to consider when consolidating. 

The study would culminate in recommendations for changes to school district boundaries, a survey on the conditions of school district facilities across the state, information on the current and 10-year projection of the population of school-age children in each district and recommendations for school district consolidations that promote efficiency, are geographically feasible and economically viable. 

“We probably owe it to our school partners to take a long look at what are the right geographical boundaries here,” McCarthy said. “As we’re thinking about how to manage this stuff, it might be a good moment in time to slow down and think about how do we sync some of these things up to be a more effective patchwork of schools that are serving our communities?”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Green Bay Correctional Institution. (Photo by Andrew Kennard/Wisconsin Examiner)

When a prison built in the 1800s is still housing people in 2025 with the same aging infrastructure, we have to be honest, the system is broken. Wisconsin’s prisons have been in crisis for years, and for the first time in a long time, we’re seeing a small but important step toward change. 

Gov. Tony Evers recently received bipartisan approval to overhaul Wisconsin’s aging prison system and close the outdated Green Bay and Waupun prisons. The overhaul strategy includes a $15 million project investment and outlines a four-year process to reduce the number of beds, modernize facilities, and shift the focus toward rehabilitation and safety. That’s progress, but 2029 is too far away, and Evers’ plan lacks the kind of decarceration measures needed to actually reduce the prison population and make Wisconsin safer. 

The reality inside our prisons doesn’t have four years to wait. People are dying. Staff are exhausted. Families are breaking under the weight of a system that punishes more than it prepares people to come home. Every delay costs lives and wastes taxpayer dollars that could be used to help people rebuild instead of being locked away. 

I know this firsthand because I lived it. I spent part of my incarceration inside Green Bay Correctional Facility, one of the oldest and most overcrowded prisons in Wisconsin. The facility was built in 1898 with a design capacity of about 17,000 people statewide, yet Wisconsin’s prison population has hovered above 22,000 for years. That means thousands of people crammed into cells meant for far fewer. Walking those halls, you can feel the age of the place, the air thick with humidity, the bitter cold in winter, and the lack of ventilation that makes it hard to breathe. The walls are cracking, the infrastructure is failing, and the environment itself strips people of their dignity. 

Those conditions don’t make anyone safer. They don’t prepare people for reentry. They create desperation, both for both the incarcerated and the staff working inside. The best way to ensure a safer Wisconsin is to get the people who are ready to reenter society out of our prisons and into reentry. Overcrowded and understaffed prisons overtax our correctional officers and make prisons unsafe for officers and incarcerated people. In addition, understaffing makes it harder to ensure that everyone gets the programming that they need. The Federal First Step Act and CARES Act Home Confinement have both proved that bringing the right people back early can result in lower recidivism, better public safety and safer and more effective prisons. 

I was one of the many people affected by Wisconsin’s Truth in Sentencing law, which eliminated parole and early release. That law has kept countless people behind bars longer than necessary, removing the hope and incentive that parole once provided.

If Wisconsin wants to lead on justice reform, this can’t just be a construction project. Real reform means reducing the number of people behind bars, ending excessive revocations, expanding reentry programs, and investing in housing, treatment, and mental health care. It means giving people a path forward, not just warehousing. 

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Wisconsin imprisons about 663 people per 100,000 residents, far more than Minnesota (173) or Illinois (341). Despite years of promises to reform, the state’s prison population has remained between 21,000 and 23,000 people for nearly two decades. 

Nearly 40% of new admissions each year come from revocations, not new crimes, meaning thousands are sent back to prison for breaking supervision rules like missing curfew, losing housing, or failing a drug test. That’s roughly 4,000 to 5,000 people every year, based on Department of Corrections data. I lead a statewide Smart Justice campaign focused on ending these excessive revocations, because it’s one of the biggest drivers of mass incarceration in Wisconsin. 

Add to that the worst racial disparity in the country. Black residents are imprisoned at 11 times the rate of white residents, according to the Sentencing Project, and it’s clear that our problem isn’t just old buildings. It’s old thinking. Reducing prison beds without changing these policies is like draining a bathtub while leaving the faucet running. Until we reform supervision, expand early release and invest in reentry and community support, the system will keep refilling itself. 

Closing prisons built in the 1800s is a step in the right direction, but it has to come with urgency and intention. We can’t keep reacting; we have to start transforming. The same energy that went into passing this plan must go into implementing it quickly and with input from the people most affected by it, those who have lived behind those walls, their families and the communities most affected by incarceration. 

As we head into a new election season, this issue must be front and center for every candidate running for governor. Wisconsin deserves leaders who will move us forward, not just talk about reform, but act on it. The next administration should be judged on whether it has the courage to close outdated prisons, expand second chances, and build a system rooted in rehabilitation, dignity, and justice. 

Gov. Evers was right when he said, “We’ve got to get this damned thing done.” But getting it done means more than moving money; it means moving with purpose. Justice reform isn’t about buildings; it’s about people. 

Wisconsin’s motto is Forward. It’s time for our justice system and our next governor to finally live up to that.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Surveillance cameras monitor traffic on a clear day | Getty Images Creative

The Greenfield Police Department has been engulfed in controversy since its chief was charged with felony misconduct in public office earlier this month. Chief Jay Johnson is accused of having a pole camera, owned and operated by the police department, installed at his Racine County home in late 2024. A 15-page criminal complaint states that Johnson put up the camera for personal use while he was in the process of divorcing his wife. 

The complaint also states that Johnson’s alleged personal use of the camera  violated the wishes and advice of Greenfield’s mayor, city attorney and members of the police department. In July, special agents from the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) attended a meeting held at Greenfield City Hall to discuss a months-long investigation with city officials. 

According to the complaint, the special agents “were advised that during an internal investigation of Chief Johnson, which was conducted earlier in 2025, investigators uncovered actions they deemed as possibly criminal in nature. Outside agencies were later contacted to investigate potentially criminal violations committed by Chief Johnson.” 

Interviews with Greenfield’s human resources director, mayor, city attorney and police department staff turned up statements  that Johnson wanted to use a tax-payer funded, police department-owned pole camera at his home in Wind Lake because of  “safety concerns stemming from his divorce,” according to the complaint. Mayor Michael Neitzke said Johnson claimed to have been attempting to get a retraining order against his wife “in part because she was dating a felon,” the complaint states. Johnson claimed to have experienced harassment including a white rose being left in his driveway. The chief’s restraining order was denied, the complaint states, after which he asked the mayor about installing a pole camera. “Mayor Neitzke advised agents that he did not understand the type of camera Chief Johnson was talking about and believed it was equivalent to a trail camera or Verizon-type camera,” the complaint states. 

The mayor gave Johnson the go-ahead to install the camera, but later began to reconsider the decision. Neitzke contacted city attorney Christopher Geary, who said Johnson shouldn’t install the camera “citing legal issues with its use for personal reasons.” Geary then contacted Johnson stating that “his divorce is not related to his job,” the criminal complaint states. Johnson’s reaction was reputedly bombastic, “‘I think it’s f-ing ludicrous,’ was the exact quote,” Geary wrote in an email to the mayor. 

Johnson tried to argue that what he wanted was no different from the security former Gov. Scott Walker received during the Act 10 protests, and that a prior Greenfield police chief also had home security. “I tried to explain the difference is that the threats in those situations stemmed from the person’s public employment and/or public policy positions, whereas this is, as I understand it, an entirely personal situation,” Geary wrote in the same email, which is featured in the criminal complaint. “He didn’t appreciate the distinction.” 

The mayor said he thought that was where the issue ended, and that Johnson hadn’t installed the camera. In December 2024, however, Greenfield Police Department  Captain Chuck Fletcher was asked by Johnson about installing the pole cameras, according to the complaint. Fletcher told the DCI special agents that he had known Johnson his entire career and “considers him a close friend.” Fletcher stated that he also knew Johnson’s wife, and didn’t consider her to be an angry or violent person. Johnson allegedly told Fletcher that he wanted to keep the camera installation “low key” and discrete. Fletcher then assigned Detective Scott Simons to handle the installation, and told investigators that he did not know that the city attorney had advised against it. 

The complaint states that Fletcher communicated the chief’s desire to be “low key” and quick about things to Simons. The detective said he was asked to “change the password for logging onto the camera, as all pole cameras have a general username and password,” according to the complaint. “The camera that was to be installed at the Defendant’s residence would have a unique username and password.” Although Greenfield’s pole cameras are owned and monitored by the police department, they are installed by We Energies technicians. A camera was taken down “from a closed drug investigation,” according to the complaint. Simons told another detective that it was “being installed in another county for another investigation.” The camera was eventually installed across the street from the chief’s home. 

Some time later, Greenfield Police Association president and detective Aaron Busche “found out by accident” about the chief’s personal camera. Busche keeps track of the department’s four pole cameras, which are listed on a whiteboard by number and location. Busche realized that the camera at Johnson’s home had no documented location. “Detective Busche was told by Detective Scott Simons that the camera was loaned to an outside agency for their investigation,” the complaint states. “Detective Busche was not told what agency the camera was loaned to.”

 

Criminal Complaint_1 - Johnson, Jay A_ 2025CF005150_ Johnson, Jay A._28099053_1

 

In the spring of 2025, Busche heard that there was video feed from the mystery camera, but then realized he couldn’t log in because the password had been changed. Busche then used a “backdoor process” to access the camera feed, and realized it was the chief’s home. During a meeting with acting chief Eric Lindstrom, Simons was asked to take the camera down. 

Johnson is accused of violating Greenfield PD’s standards of conduct by using department equipment for personal gain, and omitting or even falsifying information given to staff who carried out the camera’s installation. The criminal complaint also accuses Johnson of threatening behavior towards law enforcement. In late August, it states, a person attempting to disguise their voice called the police department saying, “Hello you f-ing pigs, revenge is sweet!” The dispatcher and Busche both recognized the voice as Johnson’s. 

Acting Chief Lindstrom had also filed a complaint against Johnson with the Oak Creek Police Department, accusing Johnson of threats and harassment over Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. One email copy says: “He’s on board, hold on tight!!!! Idiot and the ice princess will pay dearly. JJ DOJ is the man! Boom. God is good.” Another message says: “KL is on board. Friday meet with us. Ughhh. So unnecessary but he’s all in for me rn. HR and MN GOING DOWN!!!! EL is dirty so stay tuned. TY owe you!!!!” The criminal complaint states that “EL” is a reference to Eric Lindstrom who, like Busche, has also served on the Milwaukee-area team which investigates civilian deaths by police. 

The controversy raises questions about oversight of police surveillance technology, accountability for officers, and how problematic police officers climb the ranks. Community members in Milwaukee County have pushed for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) local ordinances, which would provide more oversight and control of police surveillance tools.

Fox6 reported that a string of disciplinary issues going back to 2013 followed Chief Johnson. The news outlet obtained documents which described Johnson, who was a captain at the time, as having issues with “failing to own decisions and initiatives by administrative staff” or “engaging in inappropriate conversations with officers.” Johnson had been accused of sharing management-level discussions or information related to subordinates, and planning a “booze cruise” and other organized parties. 

A 2015 memo stated that “he can’t be allowed to supervise,” and in 2017 he signed a settlement to become Greenfield’s emergency management coordinator with the fire department, before becoming chief. Asked by Fox6 how Johnson became chief, Mayor Neitske redirected blame to the city’s Police and Fire Commission.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended through Thursday a pause on lower courts’ orders that the Trump administration authorize a full month of benefits for a food assistance program that 1 in 8 Americans use to buy groceries.

A brief, unsigned order published Tuesday evening also said the full court would decide on the administration’s request to block court orders that the U.S. Department of Agriculture release full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

The case was presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said she would have dismissed the case and denied the request for an administrative stay. Jackson was appointed to the high court by President Joe Biden.

The order adds another wrinkle to a case that was already the object of a weekslong tug-of-war over how the program should operate during the government shutdown.

The shutdown could end before the stay expires. The U.S. Senate passed a bill Monday to reopen the government, and the House is expected to pass it Wednesday. President Donald Trump has said he supports the measure and will likely sign it before the end of the day Thursday.

Trump and administration officials have maintained they were not authorized to release November SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

A Rhode Island federal judge ordered the USDA on Thursday to release full benefits for November. The department sent states a memo authorizing those payments Friday morning, then appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday evening to have the district court’s order overturned.

At the same time, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

In the face of often contradicting administrative guidance and court orders, some states began processing full benefits for November, while others have yet to release them.

Workers and volunteers help distribute food boxes to those in need at a large-scale drive-through food distribution, in response to the federal government shutdown and SNAP/CalFresh food benefits delays, on Nov. 5, 2025 in City of Industry, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Payments for November for the nation’s main food assistance program have been delayed during the government shutdown, amid a confusing mess of contradicting guidance from the Trump administration and a flurry of court orders in two cases at every level of the federal judiciary.

The off-and-on freeze of benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that serves about 42 million people, was among the most consequential effects of the record-setting shutdown. Roughly 1 in 8 Americans use SNAP to help buy groceries.

Lawmakers, advocates and judges all repeatedly called for urgency to restore the program to keep Americans from going hungry. Yet the dizzying back-and-forth continued, often leaving both states and families at a loss.

While the shutdown is likely to end this week, the legal fight continues over the responsibilities of the federal government, which funds SNAP, and the states that administer the program.

Here’s a timeline of events over 42 days since Congress failed to appropriate new funding for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1:

Sept. 30, 2025: On the brink of the current shutdown, the Trump U.S. Department of Agriculture publishes a plan for how its various programs will be affected. It says SNAP benefits will continue to flow from a $6 billion contingency fund during a shutdown.

“Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds,” the document reads in part.

States Newsroom discloses the document is later removed from USDA’s website.

Oct. 1: Congress fails to appropriate any money for discretionary government programs. The federal government shuts down. USDA pays October SNAP benefits.

Oct. 10: USDA sends a letter to states telling them not to pay SNAP benefits for November, a reversal from its Sept. 30 plan.

Oct. 24: USDA tells states in a memo that it will not pay November SNAP benefits, even though it held billions in a contingency fund.  

Oct. 28: Democratic states sue USDA in Massachusetts federal court, seeking to force the department to pay for November benefits.

Oct. 30: Nonprofits, religious groups and municipal governments bring a similar suit in Rhode Island federal court. 

Oct. 31: In an initial hearing in the Rhode Island case, U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. says he is ordering USDA to continue SNAP benefits in November.

In the Massachusetts case, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani rules that withholding November benefits is illegal, but gives the administration until Nov. 3 to respond.

Nov. 1: McConnell issues a written ruling laying out two options for USDA: pay full benefits for November by Nov. 3 or partial benefits by Nov. 5.

Some SNAP recipients begin to miss benefit payments. The program administers benefits on a rolling basis throughout each month, so more people are affected every day the department is not authorizing benefits.

Nov. 3: In a filing in McConnell’s court, USDA says it will pay about half of November benefits. But it says the administrative difficulties of calculating partial benefits could take weeks or even months.

Nov. 4, just after 11 a.m. Eastern: President Donald Trump posts to Truth Social that SNAP benefits will not be paid until Democrats agree to reopen the government. At the White House press briefing in the afternoon, press secretary Karoline Leavitt walks back that post and says Trump was referring to future benefits.

Nov. 5, late: In a memo to states, USDA corrects a table for the amount of partial benefits households should receive based on income, size of household and other factors. USDA says the table fulfills its duty under McConnell’s Nov. 1 order to pay partial benefits by this date. 

Nov. 6: McConnell orders the USDA to pay full November benefits by the next day. His earlier order was clear that partial benefits must be paid by Nov. 5, he said. Because recipients did not receive their benefits, the government missed that deadline, and it must pay for the whole month, he says. He also notes Trump’s Truth Social post appeared to defy the order.

States, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Oregon, begin to authorize full November benefits. 

Nov. 7, 8:53 a.m. Eastern: The department appeals McConnell’s order the day before to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nov. 7, midday: Despite its morning appeal, the USDA issues guidance to states greenlighting full November benefits. A USDA spokesperson says the department must comply with McConnell’s order.

Consistent with the USDA guidance, more states begin to authorize full November benefits.

Nov. 7, evening: The Trump administration asks the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay of the 1st Circuit and district court orders that it provide full November benefits that day.

Nov. 7, just before 10 p.m. Eastern: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson orders an administrative stay while the 1st Circuit appeal is pending. The order temporarily halts the lower courts’ order to provide benefits.

Nov. 8, late: Following the Supreme Court stay, USDA sends states a letter demanding they “immediately undo” any moves to provide full SNAP benefits. The letter threatens to cancel other federal funding for states that don’t comply. 

Nov. 9, late night: A 1st Circuit panel affirms McConnell’s order. The trial judge was within his right to order USDA pay full November benefits, the three-judge panel says.

Nov. 10: The Trump administration continues its Supreme Court appeal, even as the shutdown nears its end and the 1st Circuit has ruled on the appeal.

Talwani issues a restraining order on the Nov. 8 letter asking states to “undo” November benefit payments. At a hearing, she says USDA has created the confusion and that states were acting in line with court orders and the department’s own guidance.

The U.S. Senate approves a bill to reopen the government and fund SNAP, sending the measure to the House. 

Later this week: The U.S. House is expected to clear the Senate bill; Trump is expected to sign it. The Supreme Court could rule on the administration’s request to freeze the lower court orders. 

It is not clear when full November benefits will flow to households.

Text by Jacob Fischler/timeline graphic by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom.

Jeff Garland, right, gives a tour of Papa G’s Organic Hemp Farm in Crawford County, Indiana, on June 23, 2022. Jeff and his son started the farm in 2020.  At left is Lee Schnell of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  (NRCS photo by Brandon O’Connor)

WASHINGTON — Kentucky’s two U.S. senators sparred this week over the future of the country’s hemp industry — one arguing that a provision attached to the package that will reopen the government will close a problematic loophole and the other contending the language will regulate the industry “to death.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell ultimately prevailed and was able to keep the section in the Agriculture appropriations bill cracking down on hemp that Sen. Rand Paul tried to remove during floor debate. Both are Republicans.

The appropriations bill is riding along with a stopgap spending bill that will end the government shutdown and is expected to be voted on by the House as soon as Wednesday. The hemp measure has raised alarm in farm states benefiting from a robust hemp growing industry.

Hemp plants have 0.3% or less of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, while cannabis or marijuana plants have higher concentrations of that substance, which is what gives users the “high or stoned” feeling. 

A summary of the bill put together by Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins’ staff says the new language would prevent “the unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including Delta-8, from being sold online, in gas stations, and corner stores, while preserving non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a warning page on its website cautioning “that delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use in any context.”

Farm Bill origins

McConnell explained he is targeting hemp because its uses have expanded beyond what was intended. 

“I led the effort to legalize industrial hemp through the 2014 pilot program and the 2018 Farm Bill,” McConnell said. “Unfortunately, companies have exploited a loophole in the 2018 legislation by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances, and then marketing it to children in candy-like packaging and selling it in easily accessible places, like gas stations and convenience stores all across our country.”

McConnell said the new provision, which won’t take effect until a year after the bill becomes law, would “keep these dangerous products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers.”

Paul and Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley urged their colleagues to remove that McConnell provision from the larger spending package, but were unsuccessful. 

“This is the most thoughtless, ignorant proposal to an industry that I’ve seen in a long, long time,” Paul said. 

The new language would change the definition of what makes a hemp plant legal, a move Paul said would mean “every plant in the country will have to be destroyed.” 

“This bill’s per-serving THC content limit would make illegal any hemp product that contains more than point four milligrams,” Paul said. “That would be nearly 100% of the existing market. That amounts to an effective ban, because the limit is so low that the products intended to manage pain or anxiety will lose their effect.”

State laws said to be nullified

The legislation, Paul added, will negatively impact the nearly two dozen states that have set higher limits on hemp production.

“Currently, Maine limits THC to three milligrams per serving. That will be overruled. My home state limits THC to five milligrams in beverages; that will be overruled. Minnesota, Utah, Louisiana also have five milligrams per serving. Alabama and Georgia have 10 milligrams. Tennessee has 15 milligrams,” Paul said. “The bill before us nullifies all these state laws.”

Merkley said the new provision in the larger spending package would eliminate the hemp industry, which Congress took steps to establish more than a decade ago.

“I support my other colleague from Kentucky who doesn’t want intoxicated products produced from hemp,” Merkley said. “But the definition that is in this bill does far more than that, and it has to be fixed. So for now, it needs to be stripped out.”

The Senate voted 76-24 to table, or set aside, Paul’s amendment after McConnell moved to block it from being taken up directly. 

The Agriculture funding bill is one of three full-year government spending bills included in the stopgap spending package that will end the government shutdown once the House approves the measure later this week and President Donald Trump signs the bill. 

Trade group warns of hundreds of thousands of jobs affected

Hemp Industry & Farmers of America Executive Director Brian Swensen wrote in a statement released last week that McConnell’s provision would have a devastating impact on the industry and its workers. 

“Congress legalized hemp, Americans built an industry, and now Washington wants to pull the rug out from under hardworking farmers and small business owners. The industry wants a solid regulatory package that protects kids, but instead, Congress wants to place industry-killing caps on cannabinoids. Congress is not listening to the industry they created — they’re dismantling an industry with over 325,000 jobs and driving consumers to an unregulated, unsafe, and untaxed black market.”

John and Kara Grady, owners of Slappyhappy Hemp Company, said during an interview with the Missouri Independent the new language could hinder their business, possibly forcing them to close down.

“You’re sick to your stomach all day long,” said Kara Grady, “knowing your hard work is for not.”

Zack Kobrin, a Fort Lauderdale attorney with the firm of Saul Ewing who works in the hemp and cannabis industry, told the Florida Phoenix that many in the industry “are surprised it was such a sudden and sweeping measure.”

“I think for those that are cowboys, they will just maximize on making as much as they can until they can’t,” Kobrin said. “I think for those hemp operators that were trying to work with regulators and trying to follow the rules, this will be a real blow.”

Gov. Tony Evers and Veterans Affairs Sec. James Bond spoke an event for veterans in the state Capitol on April 22, 2025. (Photo via Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs Facebook page)

As Wisconsin policymakers honor Veterans Day Tuesday, the state continues to grapple with diminished resources for its most vulnerable veterans, those who are struggling with homelessness.

Debate in the state Capitol continues over the closure of sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls for the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP), which provided support to veterans on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have been incarcerated, unemployed or suffered physical and mental health problems. 

Republican lawmakers recently proposed that the state create a new grant match program to help support homeless veterans. But some are expressing doubt that the bill would fill the gaps left by the recent closures, especially since it would rely on nonprofit organizations to start their own programs. 

Coauthored by Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), AB 596 and AB 597 would direct $1.9 million to be used for a state grant match program. 

To receive the funds, a nonprofit group would need to be participating in the federal per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. The bill would offer state matching funds of $25 per day per veteran.

Finger pointing over funding continues 

The closures of the Green Bay and Chippewa Falls facilities were announced in July after lawmakers chose not to provide additional funding in the state budget for the programs. Both sites closed their doors in September. By that point, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs said it was able to find new places for each resident, including some who moved to a Union Grove site and others who were transferred out of state. 

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau had warned in a memo that without funding the sites would be at risk of closing, though the recent reaction of lawmakers who sit on the budget committee gave the appearance that they missed that warning. Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic lawmakers had called for additional funding and the Department of Veterans Affairs said staff had discussed the issue with the chairs of the Joint Finance Committee. Still, one member of the committee, Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee), said at a recent public hearing on the new bill that she was “absolutely blindsided” by the announcement of the closures.

While a handful of lawmakers have advocated for giving the department the additional funding to reopen the sites, the new Republican proposal takes a different approach that would limit the department’s direct involvement in the program.

Since the announced closures, some Republican lawmakers have blamed the Evers administration for not using money in the Veterans Trust Fund to keep the sites open and instead sending that money back to the general fund, even as the agency has said it can’t spend funds without the Legislature directing it to.

“There’s money in the account. It’s fully funded in the exact same way that it was funded last year. [Evers] just suddenly declared… he wasn’t going to use the trust account anymore,” Wimberger told the Wisconsin Examiner after he introduced the new proposal.

The Veterans Trust Fund receives general purpose revenue allocations from the state, though it doesn’t function as a big pot of money that can be used for anything. The funds have specific purposes, such as to be used for administrative costs and the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program. 

According to Joseph Hoey, assistant deputy secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency did use money from the trust fund to pay for administrative expenses to keep the buildings used for veterans’ housing in “good working order.” He said it was a legitimate use since the buildings are owned by the department and could be considered administrative purposes, but that wouldn’t be the case for other costs related to the program. 

“We cannot use that money to pay [Lutheran Social Services] or to run the VHRP [Veterans Housing Recovery Program] because there is a separate appropriation for VHRP,” Hoey said.

Wimberger and Republican lawmakers have also noted a 15% increase for veterans housing in the recent budget. The Department of Veterans Affairs noted that amount fell short of the $1.95 million that was requested by Evers to keep the sites open.

Unclear whether new proposal would fill gaps

Wimberger told the Examiner that a grant program would be “a lot simpler” and require “less of a direct monitoring” by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Hoey said he sees the proposal as “the first step in leaving this up to nonprofits and ultimately spending less state resources on homeless veterans.” He also expressed concern about whether the approach would fill the gaps left by the closures of the two sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls.

There are currently four entities that would be eligible to apply for the new grant program: Porchlight Inc. in Madison, Rock Valley Community Programs, Inc. in Janesville, as well as Center For Veterans Issues Ltd. and Guest House Of Milwaukee, Inc., which are both in Milwaukee.

“As you see from the locations of those organizations that are providing these services, they’re not meeting the need in other parts of the state, and WDVA was,” Hoey said. “I think we as a state have a commitment when people sign up to protect our freedom, I think we have an obligation to care for them, especially when they’re struggling.”

Hoey told lawmakers on the Assembly Veterans and Military Affairs committee at a hearing on the bill that the additional $25 per veteran likely wouldn’t be enough to encourage outside groups to open up new programs. He said it is estimated that it costs about $139 per day to house each participating veteran. 

“$83 is barely enough to house a veteran, let alone feed them, provide them with counseling and training that they need to get back on their feet, and it’s not enough to make the programs work,” Hoey said. “That’s why we asked for such a large amount in the last budget because these programs are just slowly getting harder and harder to operate.”

Lutheran Social Services, which was helping to operate the now closed sites in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls, could not do that work with $25 from the state, Hoey added. 

“We provide the facilities for them, so they’re not suddenly going to, in Green Bay, open up their own homeless shelter, because they don’t have the facility,” Hoey told the Examiner. “They have no way to pay for it, and the [grant and per diem payment], even with the bonus, probably wouldn’t cover their costs. It’s wishful thinking.”

Hoey also told lawmakers that it is possible the money would not actually lead to additional funding for participating nonprofit organizations. 

“Based on our preliminary analysis, we believe it is possible that all or part of the $25 state payment would be clawed back or offset by the federal VA,” Hoey said. “It’s the way the program is written at the federal level. It penalizes the programs for getting other state or government money.” 

Rep. Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer) said it is a good bill and pushed back on the idea that only four organizations would be eligible.

“We have one entity in Eau Claire that would be eligible for this, but there’s no money,” Summerfield said. “They’re not going to commit til we actually put this in the statute, get the funding into it, so just to say it’s just going to be four entities — that is incorrect. It, maybe, is correct, but you cannot say that it’s going to be. It could be 10 more. We could have ones in Superior, Lacrosse, Eau Claire, Green Bay, including Milwaukee.”

Hoey told the Examiner that the proposal is at best an incentive for private organizations to apply for the federal grant and start a program from scratch. 

“It would be years before this could result in homeless transition services being provided for veterans anywhere other than in the Milwaukee and Madison areas,” Hoey said. 

The agency had previously said it could get the VHRP sites restarted within a year if the state provided the funding for the programs. 

Asked in an interview whether he is concerned about the prospect of nonprofit groups not opting into the program and being able to fill the present gaps, Wimberger said, “Oh sure, of course.”

“I wish DVA would have used the money we gave them, but this is, this is in response to the executive — Gov. Evers and his administration — just simply refusing to spend the money,” he said. 

Other proposals in limbo

Two proposals that would provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with funds to restart the closed sites remain in limbo.

A Democratic bill, coauthored by Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) , Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick), would provide $2.6 million for veterans’ housing.

Another bill authored by Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) would provide $1.9 million.

Jacque’s bill passed committee on Oct. 8 and is available to be scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate. It has not received a public hearing in the Assembly. 

Democratic lawmakers have also expressed concerns about whether the new bill will be effective in filling the existing gaps. 

“If your objective is to fix the problem that we’re now lacking services for homeless veterans in northern Wisconsin” either a bill drafted by Republican Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken) or a Democratic bill, both of which provide funds to the now-closed facilities, “does the trick,” Sen. Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) said in an interview. “[Wimberger’s] bill does not.” 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) said at a press conference that Republican lawmakers had “walked away” from the solutions that would actually fix the problem and were trying to “rewrite history.” 

“Our veterans deserve better than political games. They gave everything for our country, and the least we can do is make sure that they have a safe place to live, recover and rebuild their lives,” Emerson said. “It’s time to stop pointing fingers and actually fix this problem.” 

Wimberger said he didn’t sign on to Jacque’s bill at the time because it was “premature” when it was introduced. 

“It’s not like I’m opposed to it… It’s not like a bad thing, but I don’t, I don’t feel like I want to be extorted to pay for a program twice this. This method just solves the problem without playing this politics with homeless veterans,” Wimberger said of his own proposal. 

As for Wimberger’s proposal, Jacque said in October that he was still “gathering information on what the likeliest real world effect would be” if it were adopted. He also said he was waiting to hear back from the Department of Veterans Affairs on their plans to submit a emergency supplemental funding request to the Joint Finance Committee to address the situation. He said that “could be the quickest option for a positive resolution.”

Hoey said the agency is thankful for Jacque’s work on the issue. 

“We greatly appreciate [Jacque’s] willingness to keep going — to keep trying to get the funding for this program,” Hoey said. “This is something that he believes in and it’s not lip service.”

However, Hoey told the Examiner that the agency is not sure the funding request would meet statutory requirements and be an appropriate avenue for providing the funding given that the Legislature purposefully didn’t include the funding in the budget. 

He said the agency is unsure the current situation would constitute an emergency as it would be used to restart a program, not keep one going, and the agency is also currently grappling with a deficit. The agency’s last such request related to the veterans’ housing and recovery program, submitted to the Joint Finance Committee in March, was never taken up by lawmakers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers and community organizers gather outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse to announce a package of bills related to conditions inside prisons and jails. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

On Monday, a group of state and local lawmakers expected to see firsthand the conditions within the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF), a state-run facility imprisoning people for things like probation and parole violations. Lawmakers said the Department of Corrections (DOC) approved the tour, only to back out. It wasn’t the first time that elected officials have reported being denied tours of prisons and jails around the state, many of which continue to produce troubling accounts of the conditions inside their walls. 

“Let me be clear, the conditions in Wisconsin’s correctional facilities are not simply unfortunate,” said Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee), standing with other elected officials and community organizers on the steps of the Milwaukee County Courthouse on Monday. “They are unacceptable…We are not going to normalize inhumanity.” 

Madison said that in some incarceration facilities, people may be locked in their cells for 20-23 hours a day for months. “They are denied sunlight,” said Madison. “They’re denied movement. They’re denied programming. They’re denied medical care. They’re denied basic human contact. There are facilities where people can’t even get consistent access to quality hygiene products. Where food is so poor, it does not meet the nutritional needs of grown adults…Where communication with family, the very thing that reduces recidivism, is treated like a privilege instead of a right.” 

Inhumane conditions in Wisconsin’s  jails and prisons, Madison said, is “state-sanctioned violence, and it’s being done in our name and disguised as justice.” Rather than creating spaces where rehabilitation can occur, Madison said, the Legislature has favored “choices related to punishment over rehabilitation, control over care, silence over accountability.” He stressed that “when you run a system on punishment and silence, abuse becomes the operating procedure.” 

That’s why Madison, alongside other elected officials and organizers from Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) and the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, gathered outside the courthouse in Milwaukee to announce a package of bills aimed at improving conditions in prisons and jails. The bills would accomplish a number of things including:

• Guaranteeing 180 free minutes of telephone access, 60 minutes of free video calling, and 100 free messages per week to incarcerated people. In-person visits would also not be replaced with video or phone calls, 
• Increase wages to incarcerated people to at least $2.33 per hour. In  Wisconsin most incarcerated people are paid anywhere from nothing to 40 cents per hour, 
• Guaranteeing at least four bathing periods for people incarcerated in  state and county facilities, 
• Providing culturally sensitive products and a $25 a month stipend to help pay for them, female hygiene supplies, and other grooming and hygiene products, 
• Guaranteeing up to two in-person visits a week, and allowing incarcerated people to have up to 25 registered visitors who may embrace them for up to 20 seconds before and after visits, 
• Requiring that all state and county correctional facilities provide recreational activities, as well as organized and structured programming,
• Ensuring that people placed in solitary confinement are given a book, pen or pencil, paper, envelopes, hygiene products, a personal address book, and other supplies within two hours of being placed in restrictive housing, requiring structured programming while in solitary confinement, guaranteeing access to case managers, and providing three 25-minute video visitation periods per week, 
• Ensuring that housing units are kept at 68-76 degrees Fahrenheit, 
• Granting incarcerated people the ability to see the outdoors at least three hours daily, and the ability to be outside and up to three hours a week, 
• Creating a public dashboard with status on solitary confinement, prison lockdowns, and complaints, 
• Ensuring that lawmakers are able to access prisons and jails for oversight purposes, 
• Allowing counties to oversee control of a jail if lawmakers vote to do so, 
• And requiring jails and prisons to provide written documents to incarcerated people detailing their rights, and ensuring the document can be viewed and accessed throughout any correctional facility. 

Justin Bielinski, a Milwaukee County supervisor and chair of the Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and General Services Committee, quoted the adage that with great power comes great responsibility and added, “our carceral system is the ultimate power, depriving people of their freedom.” Bielinski said she  fears that “we’re not holding up our end of the bargain and our responsibility to keep people safe and free from harm.” 

Meanwhile, Milwaukee County is running out of space in the jail and Community Reintegration Center (CRC). “So it’s more important than ever that the conditions inside these facilities are the best that we can make them so that when people come out, they are not worse, that they are at least the same, if not better.” Bielinksi said. She added, “The Sheriff’s Office has been resistant to every attempt that we’ve made to offer change, offer oversight within the jail.” Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who was also in attendance on Monday, said he has also battled the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office to visit the jail and improve conditions there.

Although the county board can pass resolutions, they are not binding and do not usurp the authority the sheriff has over the jail. “We cannot force change inside of that facility,” said Bielinski. “And so we do need state legislation to help us out with that…We know these things are going to cost money, but we cannot let money be the excuse for treating people in a way that is less than human. And if we can’t find the money, then we shouldn’t be locking this many people up.” 

Bielinksi recalled the string of deaths inside the Milwaukee County Jail from 2021 to 2022, which led to a third-party audit of the jail. Yet in that audit, Bielinksi said, the county didn’t address the specific circumstances that led to the deaths. Among the people who died were 21-year-old Brieon Green and 20-year-old Cilivea Thyrion, whose deaths were both ruled suicides despite  their families’ insistence that jail staff were at the very least negligent in their care. Green and Thyrion’s loved ones joined local activists in calling for reform to the jail and sheriff’s office. 

December will mark three years since Thyrion died. Kayla Patterson, a member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, highlighted the deaths and riots at the jail in recent years. “And we will continue to see that until the sheriff and her office are held accountable,” said Patterson. “This legislative pack should represent one of the first steps in standing with the people of Milwaukee for jail oversight that works with them, and not against them. For real transparency input into how our loved ones are kept while in custody. In the Alliance there’s a slogan we use: ‘In your custody, in your care.’ These are not just inmates, but community members that deserve dignity 24-7 during their time in the jail.” 

Conditions within state prisons have also been under the microscope. Last year, the warden of Waupun Correctional and eight other staff members were charged with crimes related to the treatment and neglect of people within the prison, which may have contributed to a string of four deaths from 2023 to 2024. 

The deaths included Dean Hoffmann, ruled suicide by hanging, Tyshun Lemons who overdosed on a substance containing fentanyl, Cameron Williams who complained of breathing issues and was found unresponsive in his bed, and Donald Maier, who died while in solitary confinement of dehydration and malnutrition. Water to his cell had been shut off, and correctional officers allegedly knew that Maier’s mental condition was worsening, that he had not eaten for days, and had begun drinking sewage water. In 2025, Waupun warden Randall Hepp was convicted of a misdemeanor in Maier’s death, and fined $500. Hepp pleaded no contest. 

The DOC didn’t respond to a request for comment, and the story will be updated with any reply from them. 

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at the press conference, “We invest, as a state, millions of dollars in folks who are in our care. And they should be coming out on a trajectory of success to make sure that they are finding a job, finding a community, and the only time they think about their time incarcerated is in the rear view mirror, in the past tense. Unfortunately, the way that we have this set up is a broken ‘tough on crime’ idea that once you touch the criminal justice system it is cruel to you, it diminishes you, and it never lets you go.” 

Androne Lane has experienced the struggles Larson described. He came home in 2018 after spending time in several prisons including Waupun, Green Bay, Red Granite and  Fox Lake. “I think it was important for me to come out and speak today because being a returning citizen, this bill or this movement that these guys are pushing to me is like a basic, like our own constitution for returning citizens,” Lane told the Wisconsin Examiner. “We’re not asking for a lot, we’re asking for dignity. We’re asking for humanity.” 

The priorities outlined in the bill package cover things that would help incarcerated people heal and become whole, Lane said. When people return home from prison, Lane continued, “How do you get a community to accept them coming back in there? And what does that look like for encouraging the community or an individual coming back to recover something that wasn’t replaced?” 

Lane and other advocates say there needs to be a “community care plan” for people returning home from incarceration. When Lane returned home, he told the  Examiner, it took a while for him to accept that he needed mental health therapy. “I think one of the hardest things for individuals is to ask for help, not knowing what help you need,” he said. “When I came home there was a lot of things that was on the surface that I had to deal with. But there was a lot of things inside that I didn’t know I was dealing with.” On the surface, Lane was unemployed and deeply stressed, but on the inside he was struggling with the trauma of being molested as a child, and he didn’t know how he’d be accepted in the community. “What does mental health look like for us? What does wellness look like …and what is this ‘whole’ that everybody is working for?” 

Rep. Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa), said the bills embody important work for Wisconsin to take on. “I hate living in a state where we lock up so many people and have so little regard for how those people live their lives,” Arney told the Examiner. “It’s a heartbreaking, enraging type of situation…When I look around and say, ‘What’s as bad as slavery was?’ And I think of the conditions of incarceration in the state of Wisconsin. That us as the United States, we’re addicted to locking people up, and in Wisconsin we do it even more so and even worse than in other states. And even though it costs a tremendous amount of resources, there’s so little willingness to engage in what those resources are here for, what we’re doing. Why does it cost so much to treat people so badly? Why do we, everyday, just put up with the fact that we’re somewhere on the order of 5,000 people over capacity?” 

Although “conditions of confinement” sounds like a “sterile” term to Arney, she said,  it’s not. “It’s human beings that are being treated at torture-level conditions, and I just can’t stand that.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bipartisan bill in the Wisconsin legislature would impose mandatory minimum sentences on people convicted of human trafficking. Advocates worry the penalty could be applied to victims.Close up shot of fingerprint paper | Getty Images

A bill that would require judges to sentence people convicted of human trafficking to at least 10 years in prison, or at least 15 years for trafficking a child, is advancing through the Wisconsin Legislature.  

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud or coercion for labor, services or commercial sex acts. Trafficking of a child includes knowingly attempting to recruit a child for commercial sex acts. The bill would also increase the maximum prison time a person can receive for trafficking. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote that the bill “will continue to put a dent in human trafficking in Wisconsin.” Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) listed five cases in which, he wrote, a person convicted of sex trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. It appeared that the cases took place in states other than Wisconsin. 

“AB 265 ensures that these soft-on-trafficking policies never happen in Wisconsin,” O’Connor wrote. He argued that the bill’s mandatory minimums ensure adequate punishment and prevent offenders from doing further harm. 

The criminal justice advocacy group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) and the president of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative oppose the mandatory minimums, arguing that there is a lack of evidence they will be effective at reducing trafficking. EXPO argues in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that mandatory minimums risk unintended harmful consequences and resources are better spent on areas such as prevention and victim services.  

The LOTUS Legal Clinic in Milwaukee, which works with survivors of human trafficking, expressed concern in a written comment submitted on the Senate version of the bill in September. Executive Director Erika Petty wrote that many of LOTUS’s clients might support the mandatory minimum in principle, but expressed concern about unintended consequences for trafficking victims. 

“Traffickers commonly shield themselves from criminal accountability by forcing their victims — often at a very young age — to post ads, recruit new trafficking victims, and facilitate encounters,” Petty wrote in her comment, which was brought up in the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. “Thus, the victims themselves become vulnerable to criminal prosecution for human trafficking.”

The bill’s mandatory minimums would apply if a person is convicted of human or child trafficking in adult court, Amber Otis, senior staff attorney with the Wisconsin Legislative Council, wrote in a message to lawmakers on the committee.

Petty argued that under the bill, a victim forced to participate in trafficking of others would fall under the mandatory minimum, just like their trafficker. She provided language for lawmakers to consider; if added to the bill, it would create exceptions to the mandatory minimums that would give judges the ability to hand down lighter sentences or probation to people who offer evidence that their offense is the direct result of a violation of the trafficking statutes.

A 2017 Northwestern University Law Review article made a suggestion in the same vein as Petty’s, proposing that Congress create a “safety valve” for “lead prostitutes,” or “bottoms,” who are both victims and perpetrators of trafficking, to allow them to receive a sentence lighter than a mandatory minimum if certain criteria were met. An article in Anti-Trafficking Review describes a case where a woman named Keosha Jones was both perpetrator and victim of sex trafficking.

Petty wrote that LOTUS attorneys currently had multiple cases involving convicted survivors. The clinic doesn’t handle criminal defense, but LOTUS can work with survivors on their rights as crime victims and see if they can alleviate a survivor’s criminal record, Petty told the Examiner in an interview. A survivor may have a criminal record as a result of trafficking that creates barriers to gainful employment and safe housing. 

While the bill was introduced by Republicans, the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety approved it unanimously, and Minority Caucus Chair Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) and Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) have been added as coauthors. It has since passed the Assembly. 

The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety approved the Senate bill along party lines, with the committee’s three Democrats voting against. 

People convicted of benefiting from human trafficking or receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, the prostitution of others or a commercial sex act would also receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, or 15 years for benefiting from child trafficking. 

The bill would also increase the amount of prison time a judge could hand down for trafficking and give prosecutors a longer window to charge someone with human trafficking. 

Victims have a defense in court, but concerns remain

The Examiner reached out to Sen. Wanggaard in September about LOTUS’s comment and suggested amendment. Wanggaard aide Scott Kelly said that “we do not believe an amendment is necessary.” 

If a trafficking victim commits a crime as a “direct result” of a violation of human trafficking law, the victim can use an affirmative defense in court. Kelly referenced the affirmative defense and the 2022 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in State v. Kizer, which involved a woman who killed a man prosecutors admitted had sexually abused her. 

The court held that an offense is committed as a direct result of a violation of the human trafficking statutes if there is “a logical, causal connection” between the offense and the trafficking. Other events or considerations must not have played a significant role in causing the offense. 

If a victim is charged and convicted of trafficking, that would mean the victim did not successfully assert the defense, Otis wrote. This could occur if the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not meet the elements of the defense. 

Even with the affirmative defense, Assistant State Public Defender Katie York of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office told the Examiner that she thinks the bill puts trafficking survivors at risk. 

York opposes the human trafficking mandatory minimum in general, and said it takes away the opportunity for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges to evaluate each case based on individual circumstances. York said she thinks judges are well equipped to make decisions and she doesn’t believe that this area of the law needs more specific parameters. 

York said how well the defense can be used to protect a trafficking victim is “largely untested at this point.” 

Also, if there is a situation where a jury doesn’t think the defendant meets the “direct result” standard for the affirmative defense, the trafficking still might have been a contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the offense, York said. A judge could take that into account. 

“So they could be found guilty of trafficking, even if they tried the affirmative defense,” York said. “But, if the judge is looking at the full picture when they’re sentencing someone, which is what judges do, they would want to take into consideration how that person got involved in the trafficking.”

If a person got involved in trafficking because they were originally trafficked themselves, that would be an important factor for the sentencing judge, York said. 

A person might have some culpability, without having as much culpability as whoever drew them in or forced them into human trafficking, said Sarah Schmeiser, president of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 

Schmeiser said prosecutors use mandatory minimums to force plea deals, as someone charged with a crime that carries a mandatory minimum sentence has an incentive to plead guilty to a lower charge with a lower penalty instead of risking the mandatory minimum sentence at trial. 

York thinks traffickers could use the mandatory minimum as a tool to further coerce their victims.

“So if… they say, ‘Hey, I need you to post this on Backpage,’ or ‘I need you to talk to this girl for me,’ or whatever it is to bring them into the trafficking, they’re putting that person at risk of criminal liability,” York said. “And then the trafficker can say, ‘And, now you better be careful and listen to what I have to say, because otherwise, you’re going to get in trouble with law enforcement and you’re going to go to prison for 10 years,’ or whatever the mandatory minimum is.”

Increased penalties 

Under the bill, someone convicted of committing or benefitting from human trafficking would be guilty of a Class C felony, which carries up to 25 years in prison. Receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, a prostitute or a commercial sex act would become a Class E felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison. The mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison would apply to all human trafficking offenses.

Committing or benefitting from child trafficking would become a Class B felony, which carries up to 40 years in prison. Child trafficking offenses would carry the 15-year mandatory minimum. 

More time to prosecute

The bill would also increase the statute of limitations for human trafficking from six years to 10 years, allowing more time for prosecution. During an Assembly hearing, Investigator Luke Johnson of the Racine County Sheriff’s Office said many human trafficking victims struggle to leave their traffickers. 

“It is very easy for victims to be trapped in a life for many years before having a chance to get out or feeling comfortable enough to disclose to law enforcement or anyone else,” Johnson said. 

Of the human trafficking charges filed under the state law between 2018 and 2023, so far 14 charges have led to convictions, according to Wisconsin Court System data. For trafficking of a child, so far, 32 charges have led to convictions. This does not represent the number of people convicted, as a person can be charged more than once in a case. Charges of benefiting from human or child trafficking were less frequent. 

The National Human Trafficking Hotline reports it has identified 1,117 cases of human trafficking in Wisconsin since 2007, with 2,212 victims identified in those cases. There were 445 allegations of child sex trafficking across Wisconsin in 2021.

“It is imperative to note that in this underworld of crime, there are far more cases that are not reported to law enforcement,” Rep. Jerry O’Connor wrote in a comment on the bill. 

Burden of proof 

Senators discussed LOTUS’s comment during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in September, with Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) raising concern about charging and criminalizing victims. 

Committee chair and Sen. Van Wanggaard said he thinks investigators understand that a person might be coerced to participate in human trafficking. 

Otis’s email to the Senate committee noted that the district attorney has discretion over whether and how to charge someone with trafficking depending on the situation. 

It’s difficult to prove whether someone is a victim of human trafficking, York said. She added that the victim may not identify as a victim of trafficking, and may view their trafficker as a boyfriend or someone they relied on. 

“It’s a challenge to kind of go back and unpack years worth of trauma and history to say, ‘OK, this is what originally happened, and this is how we got to where we are,” York said. 

At times, a plea deal may work out better for the individual than using the affirmative defense, York said, due to the mental toll the defendant would experience from going in front of a jury and speaking about what happened to them. A mandatory minimum limits the ability to negotiate for the client, she said. 

Erika Petty of LOTUS suggested there could be a situation where someone is not ready to identify as a victim of trafficking at the trial stage, but the situation changes by the time of sentencing. 

Petty referenced a law that allows a person convicted of prostitution to submit a motion for a court to overturn their conviction if certain criteria are met, including that the person was a victim of trafficking for the purposes of a commercial sex act. Human trafficking convictions aren’t covered. 

Potentially, a survivor could appeal a decision, Petty said, but “those are all very specific, and have to align with timing and whatever underlying issue wanted to be appealed.”

Whose expertise informed the bill? 

Shortly before the Assembly voted on the bill, Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia) said the bill came to lawmakers from Investigator Luke Johnson. Johnson’s comments state that from 2023 to earlier this year, he had an opportunity to serve on a task force specifically targeting human trafficking and internet crimes against children. 

“I urge any of you that have any trepidation with this bill to sit down with those in the front line that actually do this work and actually see this firsthand,” Wittke said. 

During the hearing in the Senate in September, Drake asked Wanggaard and Wittke if they had reached out to any groups or partners that work with victims of human trafficking outside of law enforcement for input. 

Wanggaard said he didn’t know of any group recently that they talked with specifically about this draft, but said that “we have [done so] for most of the content in this draft.” He said he thinks law enforcement was probably the most vocal “because they’re seeing the same people out there, continuing to reoffend.”

Wittke said he didn’t go to any other groups and that “this came specifically from sitting down with Inspector Johnson.” 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) expressed concern about “only talking to one entity, and that is law enforcement, and we know that not all of our law enforcement officers have the tools necessary to decipher who those victims are.” 

The bill received support from the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups, as well as the nonprofit United Migrant Opportunity Services (UMOS). UMOS’s Latina Resource Center operates the Wisconsin Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Program, which helps victims of labor and sex trafficking. UMOS did not respond to requests for comment. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A 'We Accept (Food Stamps)' sign hangs in the window of a grocery store on Oct. 31, 2025 in Miami, Florida.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The Trump administration continued Monday to press the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn lower court decisions requiring the federal government pay for full benefits for a major food program, even as Congress appeared to approach an end to the record-breaking government shutdown.

Late Sunday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Rhode Island federal judge’s order that the U.S. Department of Agriculture pay full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

On Monday morning, the top federal litigator told the Supreme Court the administration was continuing its appeal.

Later Monday, a Massachusetts federal judge kept in place an order canceling a USDA memo to states over the weekend asking them to “undo” full November benefits, while chastising the administration for sowing confusion. The memo had left states unsure how to proceed, and some refused to obey it.

President Donald Trump and top administration officials have resisted calls to fund November SNAP benefits during the shutdown that began Oct. 1. They argue that because Congress had not appropriated any money for the program for the fiscal year that began that date, USDA lacked the legal authority to make payments. 

That position was a reversal from the first Trump administration’s 2019 guidance and a shutdown plan the department published Sept. 30, then deleted, and has sparked several court challenges.

About 42 million people, about 1 in 8 Americans, use SNAP. Monday was the 41st day of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Trump attorney seeks high court pause

In an afternoon brief following his morning notice to the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer largely repeated the argument he made in an initial appeal to the high court Nov. 7. 

Sauer said courts could not command the USDA to “raid” a fund for child nutrition programs that holds about $23 billion, so as to fund a roughly $4 billion shortfall for SNAP in the short term.

He added Monday that the lower courts’ orders threaten to derail a deal in the Senate to reopen the government, expected to be completed this week.

“Literally at the eleventh hour, those orders inject the federal courts into the political branches’ closing efforts to end this shutdown,” Sauer wrote. “But the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority. The only way to end this crisis—which the Executive is adamant to end—is for Congress to reopen the government.”

Sauer’s brief came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ordered the government to say how it would proceed in light of the 1st Circuit order late Sunday and gave the coalition of nonprofit groups and municipal government that brought the original suit until 8 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday to respond.

Massachusetts federal judge slams USDA

At an afternoon hearing in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denounced USDA’s Saturday night demand that states return authorized funding and maintained a temporary restraining order blocking it from going into effect.

The Saturday night memo called on states to “immediately undo” actions to send benefits to people who use SNAP.

But the states had been complying with a midday Nov. 7 memo from the same department official that instructed them to process full benefits in accordance with the Rhode Island order, Talwani said. 

“What you have right now is confusion of the agency’s own making,” Talwani said.

Keith Becker, who represented the administration in the hearing, said that guidance was meant to keep states from distributing benefits while the Supreme Court stay, issued late Nov. 7, was in place. 

Minnesota authorized benefits after the Supreme Court order, he said.

Talwani said he had provided no evidence of that.

Becker also said Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan sent out benefits between the time of the Rhode Island order and the Nov. 7 guidance telling states to issue benefits, but Talwani said they were complying with the Rhode Island court order.

The Saturday letter to states was inappropriate, she added.

“It seems to me that the states acted fairly reasonably to follow your Nov. 7 guideline,” she said. “Even if there is a mistake here, the notion that the next move, on Saturday night, is a blustering order, that they’re all going to be sued, and this thing and that thing — we’re trying to get … benefits to people who need food.”

She also said the administration appeared to be using Americans who use SNAP as political leverage, noting that even as the shutdown appears near its end, the administration was refusing to transfer reserve money from a fund that had enough to stay solvent into the spring.

“You’ve chosen not to pay your benefits at this point, and it’s hard to see how it’s not just being used as a leverage point,” she said. “I understand that there’s nice language about saying it’s for child nutrition, but it doesn’t really ring true right now.”

Appeals court ruling

Federal courts have issued a flurry of rulings on the matter since groups, cities and Democratic states sued to force Trump to release November benefits late last month. 

The late Sunday ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit, which upheld a Thursday order from U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. that the government forfeited its option to issue partial November benefits when it missed a Nov. 5 deadline McConnell had set.

USDA had argued that making partial SNAP payments, which it had never done before, would be difficult. But it made no plans to prepare those partial benefits nearly a month into the shutdown, Judge Julie Rikelman wrote in the panel’s opinion.

“The record here shows that the government sat on its hands for nearly a month, unprepared to make partial payments, while people who rely on SNAP received no benefits a week into November and counting,” Rikelman wrote. “In light of these unique facts, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in requiring full payment of November SNAP benefits.”

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote Monday night on a bill to end the shutdown. The measure is likely to pass after advancing in a key procedural vote Sunday, but the House would still need to clear it and Trump would have to sign it before the government will reopen. House members have been told to begin returning to Washington.

Sauer noted in his Monday letter that if the bill were to become law, the case would become moot.

Dems blast court fight

Congressional Democrats have been unsparing in their criticism of Trump’s efforts to keep from paying November benefits.

U.S. House ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said administration officials “simply do not care about America’s hungry children, veterans, seniors or people with disabilities.”

“Instead of helping hungry seniors and children, President Trump and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins spent weeks illegally withholding food assistance from hungry Americans,” Craig said. “Now, they are again asking the Supreme Court to stop states from feeding hungry residents. The Trump administration would rather preserve its own sense of power than preserve the lives and wellbeing of hungry Americans.” 

Republicans have blamed Democrats for the lack of benefits payments, which they say could have been avoided if enough Senate Democrats voted with Republicans for a bill that would have temporarily reopened the government at current spending levels. 

California Democrat Adam Schiff “voted against funding SNAP 15 times,” the Senate GOP X account wrote in response to a tweet from Schiff. “If he wants to fund SNAP, he should join the eight other Democrats who have voted to reopen the government instead.”

All but three Senate Democrats voted against the measure in 14 consecutive votes. Most continued to oppose the 15th vote Sunday, but seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine voted with Republicans on the bill to reopen the government that also included three full-year spending bills and reinstated fired federal workers. 

Those votes gave Republicans the margin needed to bypass the Senate’s filibuster rule.

Gov. Tony Evers speaks to reporters at a food pantry in La Crosse on Monday. (Screenshot/CSPAN)

Gov. Tony Evers reiterated Monday that Wisconsin won’t pull back the money that the state distributed to its FoodShare program late last week.

“They [the federal government] want that money back — they’re not getting it back,” Evers said in a short news conference at a La Crosse food bank. “It’s for the people that are part of this program.”

The Evers administration moved swiftly Thursday evening to funnel $104.4 million to Wisconsin’s FoodShare program after a federal court ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fully fund November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments.

Wisconsin FoodShare participants spent $9.9 million of the benefits on groceries Friday, according to the Evers administration.

By Monday, however, the administration said that it was lacking sufficient SNAP funds to reimburse retailers after the U.S. Treasury blocked the federal benefits payment to Wisconsin on Friday.

USDA said it would fully fund November’s SNAP payments in response to Thursday’s court order. Instead, however, the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the order and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it on hold for 48 hours.

On Saturday the Trump administration directed states to return a portion of their SNAP funds to the federal government.

“No,” Evers declared in response.

On Monday, Wisconsin joined more than two dozen states in a motion filed in federal court in Massachusetts to block the Trump administration’s Saturday directive.

The directive “underscores the arbitrary and capricious nature of their conduct in this matter and demonstrates the need for immediate relief,” the motion states. “USDA must make full benefits available to SNAP beneficiaries without delay, and the November 8 guidance should be enjoined.”

A federal judge temporarily blocked the directive Monday.

On Monday afternoon, Evers toured WAFER Food Pantry in La Crosse, where he spoke with reporters about USDA’s order to states to pull back funds pushed out to electronic benefit cards used by SNAP recipients, including FoodShare users in Wisconsin.

“That’s embarrassing. That’s embarrassing for any president of the United States,” said Evers in a news conference that was televised on CSPAN.

“He [Trump] can claw all he wants,” Evers said. “It’s not going to happen. They have no authority to do that.”

Evers said that grocery stores should not have to wait for FoodShare funds that they are due when customers make purchases on their electronic benefits cards. “They should be getting reimbursed like they always have,” he said.

The state Department of Health Services and the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection both issued statements Monday warning retailers and grocery stores that are part of the FoodShare program that they cannot reject customers with funds legally loaded onto their QUEST benefit cards, and businesses cannot turn away people using the cards.

“While there haven’t been reports of people being turned away or of price gouging thus far, we want to make sure everyone is clear on the expectations. No one in Wisconsin should have to worry about their next meal,” said DATCP Secretary Randy Romanski.

Evers signed an anti-price-gouging order on Oct. 31.

In a letter Sunday to Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, Evers called the administration’s clawback attempt “a shocking and disturbing request—and one that should be condemned by every person, regardless of their political beliefs or party.”

Evers noted that the state’s three Democratic federal lawmakers have spoken up in opposition to the administration’s actions.

“I find it deeply troubling the rest of you have failed to do so,” he wrote, referring to Wisconsin’s seven Republican Congress members, “and I implore you to change that today.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters while walking to his office on Nov. 10, 2025 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a stopgap spending bill Monday that will end the longest government shutdown in American history once the measure becomes law later this week.

The 60-40 vote sends the updated funding package back to the House, where lawmakers in that chamber are expected sometime during the next few days to clear the legislation for President Donald Trump’s signature. 

Shortly before the vote, Trump said he plans to follow the agreements included in the revised measure, including the reinstatement of thousands of federal workers who received layoff notices during the shutdown. 

“I’ll abide by the deal,” Trump said. “The deal is very good.”  

Republicans, he added, will soon begin work on legislation to provide direct payments to Americans to help them afford the rising cost of health insurance, one of the core disagreements between the political parties that led to the shutdown. 

“We want a health care system where we pay the money to the people instead of the insurance companies,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “And I tell you, we are going to be working on that very hard over the next short period of time.”

House members told to head to D.C.

Earlier in the day, House Speaker Mike Johnson urged representatives to begin traveling back to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to ensure they arrive in time to vote on the bill to reopen the government, after the measure arrives from the Senate. 

The Louisiana Republican’s request came as airlines were forced to delay or cancel thousands of flights on the 41st day of the shutdown, a situation that could potentially impact a House vote on the stopgap spending bill if members don’t follow his advice. 

“The problem we have with air travel is that our air traffic controllers are overworked and unpaid. And many of them have called in sick,” Johnson said. “That’s a very stressful job and even more stressful, exponentially, when they’re having trouble providing for their families. And so air travel has been grinding to a halt in many places.”

Johnson then told his colleagues in the House, which hasn’t been in session since mid-September, that lawmakers from both political parties “need to begin right now returning to the Hill.”

Trump threatens air traffic controllers

Trump took a markedly different tone over the challenges air traffic controllers have faced during the shutdown in a social media post that he published several hours before he spoke to reporters about the deal to reopen government. 

“All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!! Anyone who doesn’t will be substantially ‘docked,’” Trump wrote, without explaining what that would mean for workers who had to take time off since the shutdown began Oct. 1. 

Trump added that he would like to find a way to provide $10,000 bonuses to air traffic controllers who didn’t require any time off during the past six weeks.

“For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU. You didn’t step up to help the U.S.A. against the FAKE DEMOCRAT ATTACK that was only meant to hurt our Country,” Trump wrote. “You will have a negative mark, at least in my mind, against your record. If you want to leave service in the near future, please do not hesitate to do so, with NO payment or severance of any kind!” 

An end in sight

The Senate-passed package will provide stopgap funding for much of the federal government through January 30, giving lawmakers a couple more months to work out agreement on nine of the dozen full-year spending bills.  

The package holds several other provisions, including the full-year appropriations bills for the Agriculture Department, the Legislative Branch, military construction projects and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. 

Seven Democrats and one independent broke ranks Sunday on a procedural vote that advanced the package, drawing condemnation from some House members and outside advocacy groups unhappy that no solution was arrived at to counter skyrocketing health insurance premium increases for people in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, where bipartisanship is required for major bills to move forward under the 60-vote legislative filibuster. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech Monday he was “grateful that the end” of the stalemate was in sight. 

“We’re on the 41st day of this shutdown — nutrition benefits are in jeopardy; air travel is in an extremely precarious situation; our staffs and many, many other government workers have been working for nearly six weeks without pay,” Thune said. “I could spend an hour talking about all of the problems we’ve seen, which have snowballed the longer the shutdown has gone on. But all of us, Democrat and Republican, who voted for last night’s bill are well aware of the facts.”

Schumer bid for deal on health care costs fails

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was far less celebratory after his bid to get Republicans to negotiate a deal on health care costs by forcing a shutdown failed. 

“The past few weeks have exposed with shocking clarity how warped Republican priorities truly are. While people’s health care costs have gone up, Republicans have come across as a party preoccupied with ballrooms, Argentina bailouts and private jets,” Schumer said. “Republicans’ breach of trust with the American people is deep and perhaps irreversible.” 

“And now that they have failed to do anything to prevent premiums from going up, the anger that Americans feel against Donald Trump and the Republicans is going to get worse,” Schumer added. “Republicans had their chance to fix this and they blew it. Americans will remember Republican intransigence every time they make a sky-high payment on health insurance.” 

Schumer was insistent throughout the shutdown that Democrats would only vote to advance a funding bill after lawmakers brokered a bipartisan deal to extend tax credits that are set to expire at the end of December for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

That all changed on Sunday when Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada voted to move the bill toward a final passage vote.

Maine independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also voted to advance the legislation.  

Jeffries still supports Schumer

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during a press conference Monday afternoon that he still believes Schumer is effective and should keep his role in leadership, despite the outcome. 

“Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to explain what a handful of Senate Democrats have decided to do. That’s their explanation to offer to the American people,” Jeffries said. 

“What we’re going to continue to do as House Democrats, partnered with our allies throughout America, is to wage the fight, to stay in the coliseum, to win victories in the arena on behalf of the American people notwithstanding whatever disappointments may arise,” he said. “That’s the reality of life, that’s certainly the reality of this place. But we’re in this fight for all the right reasons.” 

Speaker Johnson said earlier in the day that the “people’s government cannot be held hostage to further anyone’s political agenda. That was never right. And shutting down the government never produces anything.”

Johnson reiterated that GOP lawmakers are “open to finding solutions to reduce the oppressive costs of health care,” though he didn’t outline any plans to do that in the weeks and months ahead.